Slashdot Mirror
Worrying Rise in Global CO2 Forecast for 2019 (theguardian.com)
The level of climate-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is forecast to rise by a near-record amount in 2019, according to the Met Office. From a report: The increase is being fuelled by the continued burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests, and will be particularly high in 2019 due to an expected return towards El Nino-like conditions. This natural climate variation causes warm and dry conditions in the tropics, meaning the plant growth that removes CO2 from the air is restricted. Levels of the greenhouse gas have not been as high as today for 3-5m years, when the global temperature was 2-3C warmer and the sea level was 10-20 metres (32 to 64 feet) higher. Climate action must be increased fivefold to limit warming to the 1.5C rise above pre-industrial levels that scientists advise, according to the UN. But the past four years have been the hottest on record and global emissions are rising again after a brief pause.
Don't add butter or salt or else you lack basic altruism and you are part of the problem. If you already don't have butter or salt you need to forfeit popcorn or else you are a denialist and part of the problem.
It's never enough.
This is extremely unlikely. The Paris accord was signed in 2016 and is against any rise of Co2 emissions.
Could you provide citation for our President being a traitor? Not taking the piss, just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Of course butter. Realy butter, from freshly squeezed cows and salt. Lots of it. In a styrofoam container that keeps the stuff warm and doesn't burn my fingers on the damn hot butter.
Screw the world. I'm old. I don't have kids. And I'm tired of trying to teach people. I tried to inform, I was laughed at, mocked and eventually threatened. What for? It's not like I need this planet more than maybe 30 more years, if that. I'm fairly sure that it's gonna last that long. After that, why should I give a fuck anymore?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Idiot
Converts? We're talking religion now?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I hope I only live long enough to be still around to see it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This makes it sound like you want this to happen? I'm not the only one that wants to see the world burn? Could it be?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I find it funny you only mention Fox news as if the outlets you like are paragons of truth and fact. Meanwhile, we have had wonderfully bad examples of how bad the news and "journalists" are as they do everything to push narrative over fact.
This isn't a defense of Fox news.
Yeah, and just like back then, no humans need to survive on the planet.
It will be paradise.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I hope I only live long enough to be still around to see it.
I for one hope I die in my sleep or in the middle of a massive orgasm before that day happens, because by the time the wealthy-and-in-charge actually sit up and take notice, things are likely to be well and rightly fucked in a way we've yet to imagine.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We get upset at CEOs who only care about the next quarters profits but as a species we rarely look ahead more than a year. Case in point everyone knew the Grand-banks fisheries off Canada's east coast were on the verge of collapse and yet we fished them right up to the point of nearly wiping out the cod there. Canadians dump more than 22 tons of GHG per person into the atmosphere (and BTW that's not counting the rotting pine forests). We beat the Americans by over 10% and yet we are doing almost nothing. If you can't get a well educated population that actually thinks climate change is a problem to change their ways there is no hope.
Go easy on the salt. Remember your blood pressure.
Haven't you heard? We're approaching the singularity when our consciousness will be uploaded to a Roomba, and then we'll live forever.
[And let me save you all some time: Yes, it is appropriate that my consciousness is uploaded to a Roomba because I suck.]
You are welcome on my lawn.
When the seas rise 20 meters and put all of the nerd habitat known as silicon valley under water then it is news for nerd - learn to swim or learn to stop making shit up.
I will believe that the governments of the world are taking global warming seriously when they start building nuclear power plants like they did in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. There is no power source that is lower in carbon per energy produced except perhaps hydroelectricity. There is nothing safer than nuclear power based on deaths per energy produced.
Don't tell me that nuclear power is too expensive because the governments of the world are certainly willing to spend gobs of money on worthless wind, solar, and other "green" energy. They are also certainly willing to spend gobs of money fighting over the scraps of carbon left on the table.
In my mind there is no global warming threat because the powers that be don't seem to be acting like it is one. Actions speak louder than words. If they want to talk about how "the science is settled" then they need to read a book on the merits of nuclear power.
We know the question but nobody seems to like the answer. Makes me think that the government is less interested in solving the problem and is more interested in dragging this out as long as they can, that way they can use this as an excuse for things that people might not otherwise allow. Well, people might not otherwise allow nuclear power but at some point they will. It's not like people don't know nuclear power exists, it powers a large part of the USA and perhaps an even larger part of its military.
After they allow nuclear power then they need to find another bogeyman to frighten the masses with I guess. What will that be? Alien invasion?
mmmmmm butter. *homer drool*
I understand the sentiment. I am not so far as to say "screw the world" but I am tired of being shamed for "not trying hard enough" because I only do what I can afford or ridiculed for not having the same fervor as the AC's spamming vitriol. If that means screw the world then fuck it. Screw the world.
Your genes are elsewhere in the world even if you don't reproduce. If you have a sibling then they have about half your genes, and if they have two kids most of those pass along. If you have two siblings then the fraction of you out there is even higher. And one can go back up the ladder, looking at cousins.
So basically you are all out there and statistically at least half your genes are in someone if you have a lot of family.
You are therefore unnecessary as a vessel for the genes to keep going. But if you feel you have an obligation to your genes then you should care about the planet.
In fact the same logic applies to people with kids. Personally they themselves will die. Only their genes go on. So why should anyone care about the planet if you don't??
Not having kids is not any basis for your logic
The headline on the article is misleading. there is nothing more worrying about this year than last year. The rate of emissions is doing whatever it was doing last year (going up, going down, staying the same...). All that changed is a temporary fluctuation in one of the sink tems is low this year. But this is just a normal environmental fluctuation not the driver term.
So yes one should be interested in emission rates and their long term impact but worrying about next year is not something one needs to place any different concern on.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
"Literally". You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
So don't count living much past the warranty.
Go stick your head in a plastic bag, and tie it tight.
Enjoy the CO2.
Wrong, ours are not going down, the rate of increase is slowing. I'm looking forward to harvesting the fresh water from your skull like a coconut. Ahh, dystopia, the life Republicans truly deserve.
"Nerds" like all sorts of things other than "tech". I'm a biology nerd, and I find "tech" about as interesting as watching paint dry. This is news for me, thanks.
I don't respond to AC's.
Sorry, misread that. I thought it's the usual 300 million year argument. Yes, in the Pliocene it was actually a bit warmer too. And the sea levels were about 15 meters higher.
Well, nothing to worry here, I'm located well above that. Hope so are you. Sucks for the couple hundred millions who ain't, but, hey, as the Pliocene shows, we don't need 8 billion people to survive as a species, so who cares, right?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sad thing is the crazy people who actually worry about this don't realize they are the butt of a colossal joke and actually get upset when you try to explain it to them.
What's funny, and I live in the great lakes area is that a few years ago they were going on about how the lakes were going to dry up and the water levels of the lakes had never been so low! They had been lower several times and in some cases for decades. Few years later, you had the same people screaming that it was global warming that caused the lakes to not freeze over - instead of a "stuck" high pressure system. Few years later it was so cold that we still had ice on the lakes in June and July, that was only a couple of years ago.
Om, nomnomnom...
Who wants to live forever? Seriously, it takes the joy out of it.
If I knew I live forever, I'd kill myself.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Okay, I can see where putting fossilized carbon back into the atmosphere is a bad thing. Hence the drive to reduce burning of coal, oil, and natural gas (well, except that noone is pushing for that to stop, they're cheering it on).
But getting excited about burning wood, which was NOT fossilized carbon, but carbon removed over the last few decades????
C'mon guys. If AGW fanatics want to be taken seriously, at least stick to the science - which is all about putting fossilized carbon back into circulation.....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Who writes this shit? I'm tired of it.
People who want to avoid a devastating future where million die due to an eternal famine while millions more flood into nations further from the equator. I think everyone is going to be tired of that very quickly. Vote for people who will do something to avoid this future and you won't have to read about it anymore.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
How is this tech news again?
I understand its an important issue, but tech related it is not.
Slashdot is "news for nerds and things that matter". Climate change matters.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Zat is weather not climate change. Da ?
I always took it as "This is the news that nerds would find interesting, that is, this is the 'stuff' that matters (to them)." Otherwise, it's just news, no?
It seems that there is a significant amount of debate about environmental science, if various scientists have credibility, public policy about what can and ought to be done that can be discussed. Some of us find it interesting, and want to hear what other Slashdotters have to say.
If you read the headline and don't think it should be on Slashdot, don't click, and that will send a message to the admins that people don't want to read these. If you comment, they will see it show up in the number of comments and that will give them reason to create more client stories. If you can't stop from clicking, then setup a way for you to not see climate stories on your Slashdot feed (I'm sure some RSS readers can filter the words you want excluded, so you only see the stories you find interesting.)
Is the temperature rising because of the rising CO2 level or is it vice versa - the CO2 level is rising because of the rising temperature? Why would the temperature be rising? Well - because of the sun activity... Where is the CO2 coming from? The oceans release it as the temperature rises. I heard the above theory I and am genuinely interested - prove it wrong.
So what is your prediction?
They never believed it - neither the ones that claim to nor the ones that claim not to.
If those who claimed to believe it really did believe it, they'd be working to abort pro-natalist policies, which raise the world population (creating more users of fossil-fuel energy) and other policies that move people to places with higher standards of living (where each uses far more energy and fossil-fuels).
Instead they're encouraging the migration of masses of low-income voters from Mexico, and prefer to let part of the government be shut down for months to allowing a wall be built to slow them. And the biggest "educator"/propagandist for the global warming claim is a billionaire from an oil-rich family who made more on his own by starting a "carbon credit exchange", taking a percentage of the added costs to global businesses imposed by the new anti-carbon laws he helped pass.
Those who claim not to believe it say it's a massive power grab that hurts their constituents, donors, and own pocketbooks.
Meanwhile, among the general public, since scientific research has become attached to moral claims, power politics, and enormous economic gains and lossess, real believers and real skeptics will not believe any further research supporting the other's view. The skeptics have seen enough fudged data, peer-review capture, and selective funding of doom-finders by the powers-that-be with more power to be gained, that they don't believe any research or analysis suggesting ever-increasing doom scenarios. The believers reject any research or analysis suggesting the problem may not be as big as claimed, or exist at all, or even be headed in the opposite direction.
The issue has become a shibboleth - a group identifier and virtue signal. Nobody will be convinced by more science, because with the claims that it's "settled" they can't separate real science from fake science well enough to trust it to change their current ideas.
So we won't find out whether it's right until it happens.
A pity, really. If there IS an eco-catastrophe on its way, we'll just have to live through it and patch it after the fact (or die trying), when we MIGHT have done something useful in advance. (On the other hand, if there isn't one coming, maybe we won't impoverish and enslave ourselves making useless motions to solve a non-problem.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The West can put pressure on China, India and third world countries by building energy efficient, non-polluting mega-factories in the West that are open to any company that currently outsources manufacturing. There are ways we can reduce CO2. This is one of them. Yes, it will take long term planning. That's something that lazy corporate boards and CEO's don't like doing.
I want to do die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
I love you.
Oh, not to worry, climate-change deniers, religious types, greedy bastards, and whoever else effectively doesn't give a fuck about what happens to the Earth, it's got it's own failsafe plan to save itself: the die-back of the Human species. You people keep going the way all of you are going, and at some point there won't be enough resources to sustain everyone, and there will be a massive die-back of our species, along with the fall of our civilization -- likely hastened by the wars that you'll fight over what usable land and resources are left. So, eventually, the Earth will survive and recover -- but we'll either not be here to see it, or there'll be only a fraction of us left. I won't be here to see that happen, none of us will, but I almost wish I would be just to see the look on the religious zealots' faces when they realize that Zombie Jesus ain't coming to 'take them home' and that they have to live with the mess they've made of things...
...or, you can all stop being idiots about this and stop fucking everything up, starting now. Your choice.
Among some of the great excerpts:
Despite the fact that human life expectancy has risen, diseases have been eliminated, terrorism deaths have declined, income distribution has risen, and the world is a better place than it ever has been, a sense of dystopian doom pervades Davos.
Unfortunately, reasonable analysis and critique like this is labelled as "far right", "denier", and from a "conservative rag" even here in Canada. Even those willing to admit they have a point will say "yeah things are great now, but the point is climate change will destroy our future!". One of the most interesting things I found researching some history here is there is ALWAYS a doomsday scenario our population is preoccupied with, this one is just a bit more heavy due to fast information sharing via the internet. People are always scared, news at 11. We have identified an issue and will slowly resolve it, driven by technology, and neither the world nor humanity will end. People talking about future or even current climate change disaster are scared, irrational humans, or trying to score political points, nothing more.
I think you misspelled "People who, for reasons of politics or gullibility, are considering the latest Sky-Is-Falling assertion from the Ecomarxist left (that has been peddling various flavors of precisely this kind of disaster-porn since the mid 1960s) as credible." ?
-Styopa
And end all fossil fuel depreciation, exemptions, exclusions, and subsidies.
Everywhere.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters. Timely news source for technology related news with a heavy slant towards Linux and Open Source issues.
In recent years it seems the site owners want to bury this and instead are bent on turning this into a national enquirer.
How is this tech news again?
I understand its an important issue, but tech related it is not.
Slashdot is "news for nerds and things that matter". Climate change matters.
But it's an AND statement. Let's look at the truth table:
(news for nerds) AND (things that matter) == ??? (FALSE) AND (TRUE) == FALSE
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
Why are you asking me what you think?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
What genius thinks this selfish opinion is somehow informative? Great so you don't want to have kids and that makes you somehow more impressive than those of us who do? We need to continue to produce children just to maintain society and support those folks like you when you get older. What are you doing about the children needing to be adopted or fostered? Did that thought ever cross your mind that you can still help out? And before you go there, I adopted three boys who father had died plus I have two of my own and I'm also a foster parent to a 1 year boy that has health issues.
You have record cold Niagara falls is frozen https://www.accuweather.com/en...
Very first paragraph: "It's that time of year when the Niagara Falls transform into a majestic winter wonderland. - sure sounds like that's unusual. NOT!
Record Snowfalls https://www.miamiherald.com/la...
55 years - for that day. Of course the temperature was actually above average for that day, too. Warmer, with more precipitation - gee, what does that sound like?
Power outages in Europe from the snow https://www.express.co.uk/news...
Funny how the BBC video in that article mentions nothing of what the headline claims. Odd, ehh?
Meanwhile we have record heat in Australia, and a sunny 40F in Anchorage, Alaska.
Don't add butter or salt or else you ... or else you mask the flavour of the freshly popped corn. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you need to buy fresh corn, pop it and eat it right away.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You obviously haven't read the science...
The equator roughly speaking stays the same. What happens is that cold areas get a little warmer.
So net expected migration would be away from the equator because the rest of the world gets a little nicer, not because the equator gets worse. (Except for flooding, which the jury is still out on)
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
China is adding 256+ GW of new coal plants to China and another 256+ GW of coal plants to other nations.
India continues to climb.
America climbed a bit this year, and will go down after this, but, the question is, how much?
Amongst all this, are the far lefites that continue to give green lights to China's massive expansion and then at the same time, does all they can to stop the one real solution, which is the use of Nuclear power.
Until ppl take this SERIOUSLY and understand that REAL SOLUTIONS ARE NEEDED to bring down ALL NATION'S EMISSIONS, it really does not matter.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yeah. Sad that a Forestry PhD from my Alma Mater can be such an idiot. However, as the saying goes, when the GPA->F for engineering, they go to Forestry/Business.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Hahahaha! Yeah, sure buddy. Talk about clueless. The tropics are projected to heat up to levels where it would be near uninhabitable.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
"Ecology... Nature is only model we have that has survived climate change with sheer, total, utter neglect..." http://bit.ly/1ohVqpE
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Sorry, I thought you were out of grade school based on your user#. My apologies.
Most people past post-elementary age would understand the construction of "I think you misspelled X?" as:
a) a rhetorical question
b) a basic syntax where the composer is inquiring (thus the "?") if a fact is true
c) a common passive-aggressive internet meme that criticizes something one person says by framing an alternative opinion as a trivial spelling mistake
d) all of the above
Next time I post a reply to you, I'll definitely try to take into account your level of education and experience on the internet, and try to keep it very simple and literal declarative sentences.
-Styopa
I want to do die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
You got +1 funny, but you deserve all the pluses for insightful. That's the best metaphor one could possibly imagine for the climate crisis. You win all the internets.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Most people past post-elementary age would understand that only questions end with a question mark.
FTFY. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So net expected migration would be away from the equator because the rest of the world gets a little nicer, not because the equator gets worse. (Except for flooding, which the jury is still out on)
It's not just surface temperature and the weather feeling nice/not nice for people.
With coral reefs dying out due to change in water temperature and acidity, you should expect migration away from many areas where this causes food security to be affected, independently from the distance to the equator.
I don't know if Indonesia and the Indochina region count as "near the equator" for this conversation, but I'd say that mass migration in such populous countries will cause a lot more suffering than what happens in Australia when their summer maximum temperatures become really high.
It's lazy to say that the world and humanity will not end (literally no one is suggesting the world will end, and the worst predictions do not predict humanity will end). It's also lazy to say that reasonable analysis is labelled as far right. The quote you posted can't be debated.
Taken to their logical conclusion, increasing population, increasing CO2 output, increasing pollution, and environmental change suggest that sometime soon things are going to reach a tipping point in the broadest sense, financial, socioeconomic, environmental. This is reasonable analysis that also can not be debated and should not be labelled left or right. Saying "I believe a future technology we have no hint of now is going to emerge soon enough to be able to have enough of an impact on this problem to materially affect the current trajectory" is the ultimate laziness. Renewables/nextgen nuclear seem at best to be able to take a bite out of current output not take a bite out of atmospheric CO2. And keep in mind we need that tech now, not in 50 years. Citation welcome, but please don't cite something lame.
But for me it really comes down to the hard fact that we are borrowing against the future for our present. The morality of what we're doing is incontrovertibly bad. I would not want to be my own grandchild, I would be freakin pissed at how selfish and lazy my grandparent had been. Granted humanity has always done this, but our ability to consume and pollute has grown exponentially.
How do I edit my sig.
What a surprise, the American apologist blames China to deflect attention away from America.
Americans are so much more dirty than Chinese it's not even close.
China could literally burn twice as much coal just to spite you, and their per person CO2 would still be less than yours.
Just put it all in a big pile and set it on fire. Just for fun. They would still be cleaner than you.
You already know this of course. Just as you already know America is far far worse than just about every country in the world when it comes to CO2 pollution.
From 1960 to now.
Have in mind that in 1950 we produced as much CO2 by burning as we breath out now.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
China and India are main contributors to increase emissions in 2010s. While the Western world actually stabilized emissions, the emissions from these two skyrocketed due to economic boom.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
You are a dumbass circlejerking moron
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Sounds good to me. I'm a scuba diver and boater. I'd love to have some ocean front property in Missouri.
Most people past post-elementary age would understand the difference between a direct question and a rhetorical question.
"Put a question mark at the end of a sentence that is, in fact, a direct question. (Sometimes writers will simply forget.) Rhetorical questions (asked when an answer is not really expected), by the way, are questions and deserve to end with a question mark: How else should we end them, after all?"
http://guidetogrammar.org/gram...
-Styopa
mmmmm popcorn