Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Global Warming Could Exceed 1.5C Within Five Years, Report Says (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the trouble-trends dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Global warming could temporarily hit 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the first time between now and 2023, according to a long-term forecast by the Met Office. Meteorologists said there was a 10% chance of a year in which the average temperature rise exceeds 1.5C, which is the lowest of the two Paris agreement targets set for the end of the century. Until now, the hottest year on record was 2016, when the planet warmed 1.11C above pre-industrial levels, but the long-term trend is upward. In the five-year forecast released on Wednesday, the Met Office highlights the first possibility of a natural El Niño combining with global warming to exceed the 1.5C mark. Climatologists stressed this did not mean the world had broken the Paris agreement 80 years ahead of schedule because international temperature targets are based on 30-year averages. Although it would be an outlier, scientists said the first appearance in their long-term forecasts of such a "temporary excursion" was worrying, particularly for regions that are usually hard hit by extreme weather related to El Nino. This includes western Australia, South America, south and west Africa, and the Indian monsoon belt.

50 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it doesn't hit 1.5C in 5 years, can I criticize the prediction. Well no. They did day "maybe." No matter what happens, they get to claim victory. Nothing presented is falsifiable. No matter what you think of global warming, that ain't science.

    1. Re:What if... by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real test of any indication of confidence is an actual wager. If they're 10% certain, they should be willing to take bets that offer 9:1 odds or better. Similarly, you should be willing to make that same wager on the other side since you're at least 90% certain that they are wrong. If either of you won't make that wager, then you're not actually as confident as you claim.

      It's the old saying, "Put your money where your mouth is."

    2. Re:What if... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      It is all down to the great planetary fart. How hundreds of thousands of years of methane hydrates are released and that is down to weather extremes not so much climate. The new weather extremes capable with a warmer climate and that could occur at any time, this upcoming summer, could see a heat peak that would result in the result of a massive amount of methane, methane that has been trapped for hundreds of thousands of years, really quite problematic. Will it occur this summer, well it depends upon weather extremes and not just this planet but also the sun. It looks very likely to occur in the near future, which year in particular, well, insufficient detail but don't worry your empty little head about it. No one is going to do nothing to prevent it and the way things stand now, it will occur and it is very unlikely to not occur within the next decade and is likely to occur any year from here on it.

      Temperatures will also increase the most where it hurts the most, large deposits of land bound ice. No point arguing now, nothing will be done to stop it, nothing will be done to mitigate the impact, nothing will be done except to hide it or lie about it and it will happen, too late to stop it now and the angry mob will be furious afterwards and they will want to hang the climate change denialists, good luck with that.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Climate deniers

      Except almost nobody denies that the climate changes and is changing. They deny that polar bears are literally in the tropics now and that changing to CFL bulbs will SAVE US ALL from Al Gore's oceanfront property being washed away two decades ago.

    4. Re: What if... by astrofurter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I must reluctantly admire the faith of a climate fundamentalist who puts his money where his mouth is. May I ask, how have you made a real money bet on climate change?

      Perhaps you bought shares in an engineering company that specializes in building dikes? Or maybe you invested your retirement funds in an inverse ETF that aggressively shorts fossil fuels? Enquiring minds want to know!

    5. Re:What if... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      I can think of a certain stable genius who thinks it's all a hoax.

    6. Re:What if... by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Living in Canada, we've got more polar bears then ever before. The numbers are large enough that they're pushing into brown and black bear territories. Oh, and CFL's? You mean those same CFL's that burn out in half the time of a incandescent, but require more raw materials to make. So ... great ... for the environment.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re: What if... by reanjr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone buying waterfront property is betting against most common models of climate change.

    8. Re:What if... by q_e_t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the hell brand of CFL ae you using that fail so quickly? I have literally had one a CFL fail and I was 100% CFL for a decade. Anyway, why would you buy CFLs now as opposed to LEDs? I now have 75% LEDs apart from a couple of small lamps that are rarely on (halogen), on a dimmer circuit that isn't the right type for dimmable LEDs (using halogens) and in the sheds which are using three of the same CFLs I used to have in the house. I have a stock of old CFLs should I ever need to replace one.

    9. Re: What if... by vyvepe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Statistics is not a science. It is not even math.

      Statistics definitely is a branch of math. You are ridiculous. You made me respond even when I do not care much about climate change. But both sides sometimes can spit such a bullshit when talking about it. One side ignores models completely because they are sometimes wrong. The other side misleads about how expensive renewables are.

    10. Re: What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      For example Hansen in 1988 made projections of what would happen over the next 30 years given various CO2 emissions scenarios, and the climate has changed as projected.

      List them. All of them. Be specific.

      People remember the few winners and ignore the many, many predictions which are disproven.

    11. Re: What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Global warming predicts everything. Lower lows, higher highs, higher lows, lower highs and abnormally normal normals.

    12. Re:What if... by vague+disclaimer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In *your part* of Canada. They are moving, because their habitat is being destroyed. By climate change.

    13. Re:What if... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He talks about a "hots summer" that melts perma frost in siberia in a 10km or 100km wide stripe.

      And yes, that could have a catastrophic effect.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re: What if... by vague+disclaimer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are called a denier because your reasoning is identical to that of other types of denier. And whining about ad hominem and then banging in about "Marxist echo chamber at school" is pure absence of self-awareness.

    15. Re: What if... by vague+disclaimer · · Score: 2

      Global warming predicts a less stable climate with more severe extremes, so yeah...you point?

    16. Re:What if... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2

      The Polar Bears are moving south.
      Weird.
      It must because their population is exploding. Only explanation.

    17. Re:What if... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could have at least read as far as the second sentence in the summary. They said there is a 10% chance of one year being over the 1.5C line.

      And if you dig only slightly further, you can see that their model provides probabilities for a number of scenarios. That's how climate modelling works, and why denier claims that "all models are wrong" are simply nonsense.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:What if... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      I am trying to figure out how your brain works, once it is warm enough the methane hydrates break down, all at once, not in slow motion. It just needs to get warm enough once and it is done, how much is how warm, not how long, taking into account the idea of hours, sure but not years. One really hot summer is all it will take. Look each and every year it gets warm enough to melt winter deposits of methane, what is happening is it is getting warmer than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years, methane that has previously melted, well melted, we are talking stuff that has been deposited over hundreds of thousands of years that never melted because it never got warm enough, now it will get warm enough. We are talking a methane that is deeper into water or further north or deeper underground, it called permafrost for a reason but that reason is disappearing, just like the permafrost and not only will the frozen methane stored for hundreds of thousands of years come out but those little bugs and critters that break down matter and generate methane, will be a whole lot warmer and a whole lot more active, woo hoo, even more methane.

      There is a great documentary talking with people living in the permafrost region, how the weather is like it has never been before, how the region is changing, first they were happy, warmer but then things started to really go wrong, such is life. I could link it but it would be waste of time, clearly you are not interested. PS smart is dumb for the dumb, just the way it is, it's called a lack of understanding and holding to empty beliefs.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    19. Re:What if... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      "Polar Bear Population on the Rise" according to new study by the University of Bad Math, Ontario.

      And to think, that article is over 6 years old~ And the numbers are still increasing...and they've actually increased the kill quotas a couple of times for inuits because they've become a problem.

      It's like people believe whatever bullshit is fed to them, and take it for gospel truth.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    20. Re:What if... by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're moving south because the ice they used to live on is melting, and they can't walk on water... so they move to land. With is south.

      Boy are you gonna be surprised when you discover that Polar Bear Provincial Park, isn't really ice but tundra. By the way, good luck visiting there it requires special access these days. Avoid the winter, and be in good health. It's fly-in only. Also don't piss off the people in Peawanuck they're pretty nice.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    21. Re: What if... by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      No, LEDs do not outlast us. I changed my entire house to LEDs over 5 years ago. I've had at least 7 go out. To be fair, LEDs are a LOT better than the CFLs and uses 50% of the electricity. However, I've also had a GE LED start a fire. Thankfully, I was in kitchen at time and turned off and then used an extinguisher on it. Of course, I called GE, and they said send them the bulb and they would tell me which Chinese company made it so that I could take a lawsuit to china. NOT impressed.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    22. Re:What if... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Well, look at that. Not only are you a special kind of idiot, but one that can't even get things straight. Give you a bonus point if you can figure out where I've worked in the far north, I've said that one too. Give you a hint, it's cold and not in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Ontario.

      I'm not Canadian but I HAVE been to not just Northern Canada, and Greenland, and Svalbard, and I can say with absolute certainty that yes the ice cover has drastically decreased, and yes, polar bears are suffering and dying as a result, and yes it's pushing them south into ever greater contact with humans and other species.

      So which is it? The fact that counts, electronic tagging and trackers, and setting up and recording numbers through migration paths showing that the numbers are increasing. And that primary diet animals are also on an increase. Or that the studies done on it, and the fact that they show the opposite of what you just said is a lie.

      You can have your opinions, but your lies are never going to work, because some of us really have seen these things with our own eyes, and your lies are never going to beat real actual experience and first hand knowledge.

      I'm sure you did. So how much was the loaf of bread and milk? And why is mock chicken popular in Northern Canada. By the way, what's the difference between beaver tails and beaver tails?

      Moreover populations that are predator-prey, which is almost all of them, follow cyclic patterns as prey explodes, then predators, who eat them down, then start starving themselves.

      You can't just look at a few years here and there and compare it to another random segment from a previous cycle.

      Thank differential equations for showing this. Stable populations are the lie.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  2. Yeah let me know when revisions don't swamp data by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Informative

    A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products
    The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...

    Or free from extraneous influence

    ABSTRACT: Monthly surface temperature records from 1979 to 2000 were obtained from 218 indi-vidual stations in 93 countries and a linear trend coefficient determined for each site. This vector oftrends was regressed on measures of local climate, as well as indicators of local economic activity(income, gross domestic product [GDP] growth rates, coal use) and data quality. The spatial patternof trends is shown to be significantly correlated with non-climatic factors, including economic activ-ity and sociopolitical characteristics of the region. The analysis is then repeated on the correspondingIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gridded data, and very similar correlationsappear, despite previous attempts to remove non-climatic effects. The socioeconomic effects in thedata are shown to add up to a net warming bias, although more precise estimation of its magnitudewill require further research.

    https://www.int-res.com/articl...

  3. Re:In before the dishonest Republican incel denial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's why people have stopped caring about "global warming"/"climate change" : https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

    Check the dates.

  4. No AI winter for meteorologists by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gets hot? Global warming as predicted.
    Gets cold? Climate change as predicted.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:No AI winter for meteorologists by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Gets hot? Global warming as predicted.

      Gets cold? Climate change as predicted.

      When did it get cold?

      Just because you're individually cold doesn't mean the planet is colder.

      That's the whole point of the polar vortex, it's isn't the planet getting colder, it's cold air from the pole coming down and your nice warm air going somewhere else.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:No AI winter for meteorologists by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the temperature swings *are exactly* what the models were predicting even some twenty years ago: not just uniformly warmer *weather* but extreme local weather events.

      If you look at maps of *global* temperature anomaly you can see why. Globally most places are warmer, but the greater energy in the atmosphere is causing warm air to intrude northward. Since air (or ocean for that matter) mixes *very* slowly on a global scale, that means the cold Arctic air doesn't just disappear, it gets displaced southward.

      Sitting on one spot on the planet, you get *extreme* swings of temperature. I plotted the temperature swing at my house; it went down thirty five degrees C in *five hours*. Then after a couple days it rocketed up forty degrees overnight. Over in Chicago they had a *seventy degree* temperature swing over four days. If you're just thinking about your *local* weather, it seems mysterious. If you look at what's happening *globally* it's quite simple and straightforward.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Re:In before the dishonest Republican incel denial by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP, said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."

    Written in 1989. We are too late already. I hope Musk gets his stainless steel rocket ready soon. I heard it fell over in the wind, but I am sure it will be up to the task of getting us off this planet.

  6. Average temperatures can be misleading by rossdee · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you ask people around here if they are worried about a 2 to 3 degree F temperature increase, they would say they'd welcome it, especially at this time of year.
    Last week it hit -35F (actual temperature, not wind chill)

    Of course ots not as simple as that, climate change means preciptation patterns change and extreme weather events (floods, droughts and storms) become more common.

    In recorded and prerecorded history the climate/weather problem that has killed the most people is drought.

    1. Re:Average temperatures can be misleading by quantaman · · Score: 2

      If you ask people around here if they are worried about a 2 to 3 degree F temperature increase, they would say they'd welcome it, especially at this time of year.
      Last week it hit -35F (actual temperature, not wind chill)

      Of course ots not as simple as that, climate change means preciptation patterns change and extreme weather events (floods, droughts and storms) become more common.

      In recorded and prerecorded history the climate/weather problem that has killed the most people is drought.

      I'm up in Alberta. We love to complain about the cold... but you learn how to dress and its fine. The problem this winter isn't the cold snaps (-34C a couple days ago), it's the warm snaps. A couple days of +5C in the middle of January sounds lovely, until the weather drops the next week and the streets and sidewalks turn into skating rinks.

      Global warming also sucks because our economy runs on oil. We can keep pumping the oil the next 5 years, probably 10. But in 20 years? 40? Sooner or later it's going to undeniably start hitting the fan and our oil isn't going to have many buyers.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Average temperatures can be misleading by green1 · · Score: 2

      You obviously haven't been in Alberta long.
      I've been here my whole life, and the -34c in winter is normal. the +5c in winter is also normal. That's Alberta weather for you. If anything is unusual this winter it's not the temperatures, it's the slightly lower amount of precipitation, but even that happens some winters, and has for decades. The temperatures this winter are well within the normal range for Alberta (and sure, there may have been a record broken here or there for a specific day, but if the same temperature had happened a few days earlier or later it probably wouldn't have broken the record.) Alberta just has lots of variability in winter, it's the predominant wind currents from the west, combined with the mountains to the west that allows this all to happen in this way.

  7. Re:In before the dishonest Republican incel denial by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that in ten years (1999) it would be too late to solve the greenhouse effect and after that the greenhouse effect is out of human control. So according to him (and the experts) it is too late to do anything about it. We had the chance 20 years ago, but it too late now.

  8. Re:In before the dishonest Republican incel denial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to the UN it can all be fixed by sending hundreds of millions to poorer countries.

  9. Silly humans by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    Silly humans think they have a choice in what they do.

  10. Are you sure haven't already reached 1.5C? by Layzej · · Score: 2

    It's really not clear that we haven't already warmed more than 1.5C above pre-industiral. Just look at the Berkley record which goes farther back than others and includes confidence intervals. It's possible we're much closer to 2C above pre-industiral.

    1. Re:Are you sure haven't already reached 1.5C? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      You do realize there was a little Ice Age at the end of the 17th C. So you're comparing the trough of a wave with a crest.

      Why don't you compare crest to crest and do it over a realistic period of time - let's say 120 million years. Why 120 million years? Because that was when proto-mammals first appeared. The environment had been acceptable for mammals for millions of years before that.

      Oh you think that's too long a range? How doing your chart from about 80 million years ago (when mammals appeared on the scene). You will see that CO2 and temperature has fluctuated wildly over that time AND ... that change in CO2 was not a leading indicator for temperature changes.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:Are you sure haven't already reached 1.5C? by Layzej · · Score: 2

      You do realize there was a little Ice Age at the end of the 17th C. So you're comparing the trough of a wave with a crest.

      The LIA had ended by the second half of the 18thC when the Berkley temperature analysis starts. So there is no trough included in this graph.

      Here's a longer term view if you like. Notice the 6000-8000 year trend back into an ice age that was dramatically reversed during the industrial revolution.

  11. Re:Yeah let me know when revisions don't swamp dat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

    You were saying...

  12. Re:In before the dishonest Republican incel denial by sysrammer · · Score: 2

    Agree or disagree, it's a little sad when a post quoting about something directly pertaining to TFA gets modded as "flamebait".

    Humans are buggy.

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  13. Re: 2018 4th warmest year on record by q_e_t · · Score: 2

    That's not how statistics work

    In the series 0,1,2,3,4,3,4,5,4,6,5,7,8,9,8

    if you said it was a trend downwards because the last two numbers are 9 then 8 you would likely be wrong. And of course there are a few places in that sequence where the numbers reduce. When applied to climate some say "cooling", even though the average in some window (say 5 numbers in the above) keeps going up.

  14. Re:In before the dishonest Republican incel denial by Kokuyo · · Score: 2

    Frankly, I'm just sick of the dude. I caught myself wanting to downmod him without even having read his posts.

    He sucks at marketing his points in a major way.

  15. Is it even possible for you US-Americans ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... to NOT reduce literally everything to money?

    Even psychopaths are horrified by your cultural mindset.

  16. always the same denier trick why 2004 ? by aepervius · · Score: 2

    I mean, why so old when other sources show that by 2007 mcintre et al was disputed as being flawed, AND in the itnerim time many more models confirmed the hockey stick shape ? Why indeed show only something from 15 years ago ? The reader may decide if this was intentional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:always the same denier trick why 2004 ? by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2

      I mean, why so old when other sources show that by 2007 mcintre et al was disputed as being flawed, AND in the itnerim time many more models confirmed the hockey stick shape ? Why indeed show only something from 15 years ago ? The reader may decide if this was intentional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Convenient to leave out Mann's biggest trick. His original hockey stick graph displayed to disparate datasets. His proxy reconstruction of old temperatures, and superimposed on that was the instrumental record. This created the shocking effect of the graph abruptly surging away after 1900. Everyone then made a big deal about that coinciding with CO2 emissions, but much less attention was directed to that also coinciding with the change in datasets...

      You are correct that more recent studies have more or less recreated Mann's results. Many have improved on his work in a very important way by including graphs showing uncertainties more clearly. In those the noise dwarfs the signal, so again without the instrumental record, there is no sudden and abrupt 'hockey stick' shape within the proxy reconstruction. For that, you still need the subtle trick of adding instrumental data onto the end.

      The newest review of the literature I can find right now(I'm being lazy) is in Reviews of GeoPhysics on AGUpub, "Challenges and perspectives for large-scale temperature
      reconstructions of the past two millennia".

      Here's some of their notes and conclusions making more or less the same observations as my summary:
      "Regardless of the many seemingly contradicting results regarding, e.g., regularization methods, and regardless of other technical issues, underestimation of low-frequency variability is a serious concern and that reconstruction methods in particular have problems reconstructing temperatures that are outside the range of the calibration interval. The main reason seems to be a feature of direct regression and CPS methods which under general assumptions can be shown to be biased toward zero."

      "We saw that the different reconstructions agree on the general form of the low-frequency variability but that they disagree on the amplitude; the centennial-scale amplitude (i.e., the temperature difference between the warm eleventh century and the cold seventeenth century),in particular, varies from 0.14 to 1.3C

      Around page 25 they have this to say in comparing reconstructions to instrumental records:
      "It is obvious that the noise is considerable and that the signal TTis not easily seen in P. In particular, for
      c=0.40 and c=0.25 the trend in the twentieth century is practically lost in the noise. It is clearly not a simple
      task to extract the signal from the noisy series—almost like making eggs from scrambled eggs—although
      temporal or spatial averaging may reduce the noise."

      In other tree ring reconstruction reviews(I can't find it right now but I've not spend much time either) the authors note that bad sensitivity to high temperatures (like the current period), is a known issue particular to tree rings and handling of that problem is a big and current research area.

      So the overall summary being, there are a lot of unknowns, the hockey stick only 'works' if you are a bit dishonest on your graph, and when we say the current warming is unprecedented over the last millenia plus it is with a host of caveats and uncertainties that you need to read the full papers to see, and the uncertainties aren't nothing.

  17. Re:Yeah let me know when revisions don't swamp dat by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

    How much of that research is based on 'adjusted' data sets? Who is using the actual underlying raw data, and using it properly?

    Using it properly means that you have to adjust for various errors. Simple example: instead of using a wooden bucket and thermometer to measure sea temperature, ships now continuously measure temperature at inlet of cooling water. While both methods are fine, there is a small offset between the two, so if you want to use both in same graph, you need to adjust one or the other.

    The raw data is still available for download, as well papers describing the methods for adjusting. If you want to propose a better adjustment method, go ahead.

  18. Hysteria by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    https://www.nola.com/expo/news...

    This woman claims she "had to" destroy a home due to sea-level rise from climate change, because "she couldn't sell it, even after reducing the price 11 times".

    She bought the house just over 20 years ago. Sea level has risen 3" since then (at the most generous calculation). 3" makes this 80 year old home "unsellable"? Really?

    Then check this:
    https://blog.luxurysimplified....
    which links to this GIS map https://www.luxurysimplified.c...

    From that review, "...or fun, move to the "Historic Maps" layer and add the layer reflecting the map of 1680. The areas that are susceptible to flooding are exactly those that used to be marsh or creek. ..."

    Don't build your house in a creek bed and then complain that it floods. Complain to the builder/seller that they didn't disclose your house is where water should be.

    --
    -Styopa
  19. Re:Yeah let me know when revisions don't swamp dat by greythax · · Score: 2

    That was written by this guy. Respectfully, you might want to check your sources more carefully from now on.

  20. IPCC based on 10,000's of papers by DogDude · · Score: 2

    You clearly don't understand how science works. The IPCC reports are based on TENS OF THOUSANDS of studies. So for you to point at one or two (or even a dozen) papers and say, "those don't work, so it's all fake" tells me that you either don't understand science, or you're intentionally trying to make shit up.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  21. It's a range the Green New Deal can fix by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's fairly simple to cut your individual emissions to about 1/10th of what they were. I personally cut mine to 1/20th, by some fairly simple measures. And, bizarrely, almost all of the actions taken SAVED ME MONEY.

    Things like buying some solar panels in bulk (my house was built in 2000, so it can support solar panels and the electrical has to be able to deal with it. Replacing an old gas furnace with a more efficient two-phase one (the old one only had instant on full blast fans), replacing lightbulbs everywhere (dramatic drop from that, my new LEDs even include external floods that are way brighter than the old incandescent ones, but use 1/6th the energy, trick is to buy them in bulk when they have sales and replace from the ones left on the most to the ones used the least), new fridge/stove/washer/dryer (pro tip: buy the most efficient one, even if you don't get a discount from your utility, surprised how much that saved.

    We can rapidly remove all tax exemptions, deductions, and exclusions for all fossil fuel infrastructure. It's about 90 percent of the DOE budget. And create jobs - solar and wind combine very well for a good power curve, and they create a lot of local jobs and income stream for farmers and ranchers. Just covering irrigation canals with solar panels reduces evaporation and reduces salt impact on your crops.

    We fought both the Nazis and Japan in WW II. We can easily do this.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --