Slashdot Mirror
3-5 Degree Rise in Arctic Temperatures Called 'Inevitable' (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian:
Sharp and potentially devastating temperature rises of 3C to 5C in the Arctic are now inevitable even if the world succeeds in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement, research has found.
Winter temperatures at the north pole are likely to rise by at least 3C above pre-industrial levels by mid-century, and there could be further rises to between 5C and 9C above the recent average for the region, according to the UN. Such changes would result in rapidly melting ice and permafrost, leading to sea level rises and potentially to even more destructive levels of warming. Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate "tipping point" as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect. "What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic," said Joyce Msuya, the acting executive director of UN Environment...
Even if all carbon emissions were to be halted immediately, the Arctic region would still warm by more than 5C by the century's end, compared with the baseline average from 1986 to 2005, according to the study from UN Environment. That is because so much carbon has already been poured into the atmosphere. The oceans also have become vast stores of heat, the effect of which is being gradually revealed by changes at the poles and on global weather systems, and will continue to be felt for decades to come.
The findings were presented at the UN Environment assembly Wednesday, where a report written by 250 scientists and experts from over 70 countries also warned that "damage to the planet is so dire that people's health will be increasingly threatened unless urgent action is taken."
Winter temperatures at the north pole are likely to rise by at least 3C above pre-industrial levels by mid-century, and there could be further rises to between 5C and 9C above the recent average for the region, according to the UN. Such changes would result in rapidly melting ice and permafrost, leading to sea level rises and potentially to even more destructive levels of warming. Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate "tipping point" as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect. "What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic," said Joyce Msuya, the acting executive director of UN Environment...
Even if all carbon emissions were to be halted immediately, the Arctic region would still warm by more than 5C by the century's end, compared with the baseline average from 1986 to 2005, according to the study from UN Environment. That is because so much carbon has already been poured into the atmosphere. The oceans also have become vast stores of heat, the effect of which is being gradually revealed by changes at the poles and on global weather systems, and will continue to be felt for decades to come.
The findings were presented at the UN Environment assembly Wednesday, where a report written by 250 scientists and experts from over 70 countries also warned that "damage to the planet is so dire that people's health will be increasingly threatened unless urgent action is taken."
to fart all weekend
Bonus points if your answer doesn't include the word "tax"
First one referenced mid-century, second one referenced end of century. It'll eventually get bad. Just a question of whhow many of us will live to see it
I'm sure some "cogent, studied, factually-handy, helpful and altruistic" Republican friends will be here to child-splain to us that this is all a hoax, inevitable, not happening, but also unstoppable and we shouldn't try.
We at some point have to listen to science. Obviously since we haven't kicked these long-time-oil-funded denialists to the curb entirely, we aren't to that point yet.
So the question becomes : How long are we going to entertain these no-credential no-science-background 1950's "I got mine's" and their Fox News hot air before we ignore them and begin to really address this?
I'm tired of their lies, always the same predictable shit in the face of scientific facts they will never acknowledge - and never read except to take single lines out of context as if that debunks the rest of it.
It's time to debunk their Big Tobacco playbook and forget them.
Carbon is not the only grernhouse gas, nor the most potrnt one.
You're welcome.
Climate change was an inside job.
Never forget.
Sun was weaker in the Jurassic.
^^ I'm sure some "cogent, studied, factually-handy, helpful and altruistic" Republican friends will be here to child-splain to us that this is all a hoax, inevitable, not happening, but also unstoppable and we shouldn't try.
We at some point have to listen to science. Obviously since we haven't kicked these long-time-oil-funded denialists to the curb entirely, we aren't to that point yet.
So the question becomes : How long are we going to entertain these no-credential no-science-background 1950's "I got mine's" and their Fox News hot air before we ignore them and begin to really address this?
I'm tired of their lies, always the same predictable shit in the face of scientific facts they will never acknowledge - and never read except to take single lines out of context as if that debunks the rest of it.
It's time to debunk their Big Tobacco playbook and forget them.
Look at this idiot's need to shout and hand-wave ^^ to distract from what science says is inevitable - "It doesn't matter because dinosaurs once ruled the Earth!" - verbatim, almost.
I think the point is to make us think global warming should be super scary. In fact global warming will merely lead to an expansion of the agriculture belt, with the equatorial belt growing the most. Thus we will get more better stuff, especially jungle fruits and olive trees. Will it lead to more better other stuff? Only time and common sense will tell. It seems likely that rivers near the equator will become more powerful and insanely cold places may be less insanely cold.
Coming along to blame China.
To distract everyone from reaslising America has been the main cause of the CO2.
talk about handwaving you fucking npc cuck sjw loser. you cant even explain the 1950ppm of the jurassic.
sad little manlet numale dickless shit cant even explain that.
What's Draconian? That you might have to eat meat only once a day (healthier anyway)? Or that you might have to take an electric train on a 500 mile trip, not fly in a fossil-powered Spam can? Or that you'll have to drive in an electric or hydrogen car, not a hydrocarbon-belcher? Or that your apples might not come in a wasteful plastic bubble pack? Or that you might end up telecommuting a few times a week or even (OMG!) live in a more urban area or small town closer to your job? Or that your electricity might come from clean nuclear and renewables, not a coal-burning smog-belcher? OMG, the horror!!! Society will move on, just like it did when the EPA was introduced and car exhaust no longer smelled like an oil rig, rivers no longer caught fire, and bird populations increased as DDT was banned...
Which is why AGW regulations/agreements do include (and are now focusing on more and more) Methane, the ~50x insulator produced by Oil/Gas low-budget production and especially obviously, livestock. Cattle. There are ways to extract oil/gas without releasing millions of tons of methane. There are ways (expensive AF at the moment, but they exist) to capture livestock methane also, and the price is always falling as the industry finds cheaper ways of doing it. All of this falls under the AGW mitigation umbrella of concerns and is something we are already doing in small scales. We need to do them at almost all scales. The economic paradigm for short-term profit needs to sit the bench this quarter, we have some serious investing to do in our systems for them to continue working long-term. If we allow ourselves to be destroyed for short-term distributed profits and socialize the losses, that IS the evil version of socialism Republicans fear, they just don't realize it yet.
It's enevitable so buy your Arizona beach property now, before L.A. is underwater and prices go up.
No: it will shift the belts toward the poles, but not necessarily expand their sizes. Also, it has to be addressed eventually. 3-5C is one thing, but when do we decide to stop? At 10C? 20C? 30C?
Emotional? Like scaring little kids (who are too young to have developed rational thought) into skipping school?
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Ah and the left will save us if we only become their bitch slaves?
No thanks. I'll take my chances with the planet over your ideology and religion.
"to be subject to draconian restrictions" - Brett Buck lies once more. "while paying massive wealth redistribution/"reparations"" - Also false. " with no real restrictions at all." - Also false, though implementation takes time.
" This was the solution in the 70's " - And... also false. Brett, do you ever know what you're talking about? I must have missed it.
You're making my point for me. (Mod up +1, Central Casting)
Think about this. The French, Swiss, Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese all have industrialized, happy societies while belching out about 1/3 of the CO2 emissions per person of the US. Lowering CO2 emissions doesn't have to come with a dramatic lowering of the standard of living. It's mainly an engineering problem...
What’s the emotional response even supposed to be then? If you tell people that something is inevitable they’re not going to care. In that case you don’t care about cutting carbon emissions, you start planning with how to best deal with the consequences.
Water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas. Ever hear of fucking clouds?
At least trump is happy as most of Florida will now be under water along with New York etc. Trump Towers will now be a beech front property
You're making my point for me. (Mod up +1, Strawman Porn)
co2 is less harmful than methane, so why not just flare all the methane and be done with it? doesn't fix the problem, but sounds like a good mitigation strategy
OMG! OMG! Are you saying some heretofore unimagined belt will appear at the equator and shift all the other belts toward the pole?
Been there, done that. Tee-shirt is found in the mud and or ice cores. So plan on six meters of sea level rise.
http://academic.emporia.edu/ab...
If we get all the way to the Pliocene we could have 25 meters of sea level rise. Wikipedia has plenty on the Pliocene Climactic Optimum, so you can look it up yourself.
Renewable energy sector is exploding for that reason, correct. Nuclear power being more expensive to produce is not being privately invested in, and 5-year-in plant projects are being shuttered by the dozen in Europe as we speak.
Long terms I'm sure we'll see nuclear recover and be done safely but right now it would require massive investment from the states, IE, socialism rather than what many prefer in a market-driven solution like renewables/batteries.
Getting the population to make the switch could be a massive business opportunity, hence... the investment increasing. Not so with nuclear I'm afraid, for the moment it's just too expensive and getting worse short term.
IOW: "I have no argument".
"SOME DAMAGE INEVITABLE, more damage VERY POSSIBLE without course correction" - READ BETTER PLEASE. That's what it actually says, your emotions need to interpret that correctly before you go full emo.
Not to mention water vapor's contribution as a greenhouse gas. Perhaps they'll be happier when they turn Earth into Mars.
Yeah, you win.
You found the global warming fag, 97% of the world's related scientists and models. You're a genius and you deserve our attention and recognition. You accomplished something here and should have a huge ego accordingly.
Republicanism = 1, Reality = doesn't matter, let's say -500
Lowering CO2 emissions has just been declared meaningless (or nearly so). If enough warming to melt arctic (and presumably antarctic) ice is "inevitable", then restricting CO2 emissions hardly matters.
As to the French, Swiss, Italians, Spanish and Portuguese, how well do they do the whole "industrialized, happy society" if they don't have imports from all those places that don't? Can't recall the last time I saw any industrial-type imports from any of those places, so seriously want to know just how independent their "industrialized, happy societies" are....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The only way to save the world is to give up any and all wealth to centralized power and kill all white people
i would much rather kill you and your "friends" than live under your rules. we are in the shadows armed to the teeth and one day you will cross that line. i have nothing left but extreme violence even after i pay half my income to your police state while i do all of the work (and you do none) and pay all of the taxes and raise my kids (while you try to indoctrinate them).
in the end, just as it has always been, killing your kind is the only cure.
I think the point is to make us think global warming should be super scary. In fact global warming will merely lead to an expansion of the agriculture belt, with the equatorial belt growing the most. Thus we will get more better stuff, especially jungle fruits and olive trees. Will it lead to more better other stuff? Only time and common sense will tell. It seems likely that rivers near the equator will become more powerful and insanely cold places may be less insanely cold.
Hmm, I guess I'll trust your uninformed speculation over the thousands of people who study this stuff for a living.
I was thinking about taking up smoking, now a lot of doctors told me that would be really bad for my heath, but maybe you've got some hunch that it will exercise my lungs?
I stole this Sig
When you have nothing constructive to say, resort to death threats.
We need multiple stories per day about what someone predicts might happen 50 years from now. We will call it "news", even though they are just predictions of the distant future and, rather than being new, they are all more-or-less the same.
Lowering CO2 emissions has just been declared meaningless (or nearly so). If enough warming to melt arctic (and presumably antarctic) ice is "inevitable", then restricting CO2 emissions hardly matters.
Only if we give up. If we decided to come up with some scheme for forced cooling, then we'd still want CO2 reduction, so as not to be making the problem worse while trying to make it better. Also, the more CO2 there is in the air, the worse the air gets for mammals. We're mammals. It still matters.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It doesn't just keep going and going. The Earth is either warm or cold.
The other 2/3's is Al Gore flying around on his jet preaching about climate change.
He says it's all a big fake news hoax and he never laundered money for the Russian mob, investigation over, everybody go home. Not you Manafort, you die in prison. Ok, show's over folks... no collusion.
But that's the LIE. There are NOT 'thousands' studying it. Some wankers make up a model, that might/kinda/maybe/somewhat simulate the ENTIRE planets atmosphere, plug in garbage numbers and get 5c warming between now and 1000 years from now.
CO2 is not the big issue. Water vapor is. But CO2 is much scarier than water, so lets use that to scare the retards on the internet.
The earth warms, the earth cools. And at no point in the last 20 years have the temp predictions ever been accurate.
So no, there is no 'science' behind it. Only poorly utilized computer games that tell these 'scientists' (term used very loosely) what they want to hear.
If you look at the "recommendations" section, you can see what they want us to do:
"Current patterns of consumption, production and inequality are not sustainable....[Solutions] include changes in lifestyle, consumption preferences and consumer behaviour on the one hand, and cleaner production processes, resource efficiency and decoupling, corporate responsibility and compliance on the other hand. ...Efforts to combat biodiversity loss must also address poverty eradication, food security challenges, gender inequality, systemic inefficiencies and corruption in governance structures and other social variables.
So there it is, that's what we have to do to stop global warming: you need to change your consumption preferences, and all those social variables.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
^ Found the poor victimized white slave left behind by Europe, aww. Poor baby is lost without a teet to suck on. I'll raise it as a potbellied pig, you're my pet now, poor little cutesy victim, aww. Adorable bitching.
"It's time to debunk their Big Tobacco playbook and forget them." = I already explained everything that needs be said about you and your bullshit, sorry. We see right through you retards now, you're beyond predictable. You're bots.
Obviously your AI isn't perfected yet, good luck sir robot. I hope you help catch those pedos in your party someday.
The polar temperature rise referenced here is the 2C-scenario on the world average temperature rise, where the arctic average temperature were supposed to rise up to 8C, according to some charts I saw once. So this is the optimistic prediction.
And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Even if your incoherent rambling made any sense at all, how is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere going to help plants and trees and more biodiversitym, considering the rate at which we are also destroying forests?
Here, educate yourself a bit.
The true Trumpist mindset shows itself.
A compilation of the results of several studies, all which more or less point to the same conclusion definitively using different methodologies. You don't know what you're talking about and are attempting a "political point" and failing.
Stop lying, stop mischaracterizing things intentionally and adding your denialist bullshit flavor. It's stale, you look stupid doing it now if once it ever worked.
More tshirts, less jackets.
97 percent of the world is as dumb or dumber than you ill take my chances with the 3% of those brave enough to speak the truth.
Shocker. Actually those are solutions that ANYONE can do in any part of the world, individually. Yes, it's actually factual. It's something the layman can do in their lives to affect change, in addition to what industries/governments do.
Why are you so dishonest and against the idea that reducing the overconsumption and waste in our societies is going to be a partial solution, one that we can accomplish right away if we choose?
The science denialism and total braindeath among both the named subscribers and the ACs in how they address topics of this type is beyond sad, quite distressing for one who has been here since the beginning when we were 100% techies. It's terminal for the site.
Slashdot's owners ought to take note and put in place some strong negative feedback to counter this, before the value of their "property" falls to less than zero. It may be too late already.
there is nothing constructive to say when subjected to your tyranny
*effect change, whoops.
Ah, it's the Daily Libtard Anonymous Rando Spam. Always enjoyable.
Just a question of whhow many of us will live to see it
We won't. That's why *we* don't care. Just give us another 30 years of social security, and fuck the kids! Right?
May the taxes of idiots water the tree of education, whether they like it or not - or they can move out to the fucking middle of the ocean and be uneducated denialist tribesmen instead. Either way, Mongo only pawn!
Candygram incoming.
Those are mild climates. USA has fearsome heat and heavy winters for large areas.
The need for more energy is real. We could get that from non-polluting sources someday, but we won't be flipping a switch to solve the problem overnight.
Carbon is not the only grernhouse gas, nor the most potrnt one.
You're welcome.
True, but it's among the longest lived.
Gases like methane are more potent initially but they break down much faster (maybe 20 years for methane to turn into CO2).
CO2 can hang around for hundreds of years, maybe even 1000 years.
Right now though, 20 years is still far too long. I'll give you that.
No sig today...
co2 is less harmful than methane, so why not just flare all the methane and be done with it?
You mean set all the cows on fire?
Sure, why not? I'm up for that.
No sig today...
"speak the truth." - Doctor Trump, I presume? Lol. Just lol, it's so much easier being a troll than being a scientist, you're spot on about that much.
Just a heads up - you can't self-nominate for the Nobel prize. Many things don't work as you assume just because you've never studied it. That's really it.
If you paid any attention at all you could probably get back up to the middle of the bell curve, you know, IF you TRIED to...
Or is the bell curve also tyranny, lol? The tyranny of the stupid indeed, GOP. (Mueller will see you now.)
Oh nice. An personal attack and ignorance in one.
A vapor is exactly a gas. Or is this the equivalent of "gas is racist" now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Gas_constant
And from the amet website
"Water vapor is important not only as the raw material for cloud and rain and snow, but also as a vehicle for the transport of energy (latent heat) and as a regulator of planetary temperatures through absorption and emission of radiation, most significantly in the thermal infrared (the greenhouse effect)."
That renewables are not going to save us. And that we need to switch to nuclear ASAP in order to save the planet? How much longer are they going to oppose nuclear power, insisting that the only way to fix things is with renewables? Because their opposition is really the only thing stopping us from solving the CO2-induced global warming problem once and for all. None of the climate change skeptics have a problem with nuclear power (well, maybe the coal and oil industries do). It's only the environmentalists preventing us from solving global warming.
Nuclear power doesn't have to be the endgame. After we've replaced fossil fuels with nuclear power, we can still work on developing renewables (and battery tech). And as they become more capable, we can shut down nuclear plants and replace them with renewables. But what's important here and now is to get us off of fossil fuels ASAP. And right now that means replacing all our base load fossil fuel plants with nuclear plants.
...if we only had all bought $60,000 Tesla cars this could have all been avoided.
Water vapor absorbs significant energy too. You must be new to physics and latent heat.
The problem with all of the Global Warming hysteria is its based on computer models. Actual history shows crops were bountiful and the population exploded during the big optimum where temperatures were 1 or more degrees warmer than they are even today, and that was from around 900-1300 ad. So just exactly why is anyone in the technology industry, who use computer models on a daily weekly yearly basis, able to sit there with a straight face and talk about how accurate they are? They are no where near accurate. The more crap you throw into a computer model the more demented the data/projections become.
The only issue with global warming as a whole is going to be the population growth, where everyone has plenty of food to eat for years until they hit the limit that pushes use into a famine when we are unable to sustain our species, or there is a cold period. Other than that, we are not all going to die because its warmer, we may start to die in a generation or 4 from an exploding population, or like the end of the big optimum with a cold period and famine which made plague like the Black Death so virulent that it decimated 2/3 of europe.
It seems more like a money grab in my opinion. Carbon taxing. Remember the Ozone layer? Maybe a few older people do, but we were supposed to be dead by now, and yet here were are. Or according to Al Gore, we were supposed to be dead by 2010 due to climate change/global warming. I'm doing fine, and if you are reading this, most likely you are doing well enough to either own a computer or smart phone and/or goto a library to read the internet instead of starving in the streets of london like a peasant in 1347 hoping for a handout or someone to just kill you to stop the hunger.
^^^ says the whitest guy here
Some clouds reflect energy effectively, some don't.
This is an extremely complex system that no human being is capable of understanding in its entirety. We just can't hold that many variables in our heads. That is why low information people mostly talk about one variable--CO2.
Interesting how new of this and recent world wide environmental protests are so easily overshadowed by a terrorist attack.
Most destabilizing news conveniently meets the same fate.
We are certainly being manipulated with a technique of distraction and plausible deniability.
Name one fact in the post that's incorrect. Just one. You can't so you predictably resort to partisan babble.
In fact, consumer consumption DRIVES manufacturing and agriculture trends! THAT IS WHAT IT IS SAYING, YOU CAN HAVE A SAY - vote with your wallet. That's IN ADDITION to whatever industry/governments do, IMMEDIATELY.
If people made a strong movement towards reducing excess consumption that market trend would be noticed by the bean-counters and have "an effect" on their production processes ongoing, on both sides of the market.
Stop being willfully stupid, it's not presented as "the entire solution" to AGW. Mischaracterizing it doesn't help your argument whatsoever.
We are already past the runaway global warning all life dies threshold. The only hope for survival of any life to survive is for the creation of a nuclear winter, and even that may not work.
So PARTY HARDY while you can.
A few degrees temperature increase won't harm our lifestyle much. What it will do is kill off the oxygen-producing bacteria and micro-life in the top few fathoms of ocean. Since that covers 72% of the planet, the oxygen levels in the atmosphere will decline, and so will most of the populations of everything else, and then we'll have taken care of overpopulation, hunger (plenty of food plants for the people remaining), poverty (just take from that now-empty house over there), and probably lots of other bad things. Sure, the weather will have more extremes and more storms, but we've been complaining about the weather for centuries and no one expects that to change or improve.
What's not to like?
Here's the problem: if you approach all those top-down, "we're doing this because climate", it won't stick. People will rebel because they will hate changing hard habits for what to them looks like a speculation (and it is -- there is no way to disprove or even verify the entire climate change theory). The car exhaust, the rivers on fire, the decreased bird populations, all of that was obviously wrong, it smelled like death -- it made living creatures that we are recoil. Not so with climate change: it's an abstract, dry, unbelievable, unrelatable theory to most of us.
Approach all those you mentioned bottom up and focus on reducing pollution; in the process you will likely reduce the carbon footprint. If the theory is correct, great. If it isn't, we will still benefit from less harm to living things.
It's irrelevant as to whether the Earth has ever been warmer or colder (no-one is denying that). It's whether we can save (most) of our current lifestyles by making significant, but not too uncomfortable changes to them. And quickly. When the Earth was previously hotter or colder, and Man was either not here, was not causing the changes, or didn't have the capacity to change them, is not really an important point of discussion. Man is here now, (likely) causing the changes, and (hopefully) has the ability and willingness to do something about it.
maybe 20 years for methane to turn into CO2
Methane has about a 7 year half-life in the atmosphere. So in 20 years, about 7/8ths will have oxidized.
Clouds aren't causing 400ppm C02. That is truly all that need be said. "Learn about equillibria " lol you misspelled it. Two L's. Yes, people with actual science backgrounds know what that means, and how it's spelled.
He just referred to watervapor as "greenhouse gas" lol. "Storing" is not what we're talking about, "trapping" and "reflecting" infrared radiation is what we're talking about, and vapor absorbs a % of course and reflects a %.
Lowering CO2 emissions has just been declared meaningless (or nearly so).
That is not at all what TFA is saying.
If enough warming to melt arctic (and presumably antarctic) ice is "inevitable"
The arctic is going to melt, and much of it already has.
The Antarctic is a different story. It is so cold that global warming has so far caused warmer air to hold more humidity, increasing snowfall, and is actually expanding the icepack. Of course, if temperatures continue to rise, this will eventually go into reverse, but it is not as hopeless as you seem to believe.
Spoken like a true ignoramus, Sun is the best known component of the entire complex problem. We know exactly what it has been doing the entire Earth's history and what it will continue to do for the remainder of it. But, by all means, do explain how younger Sun caused climates warmer than today, with numbers pretty please.
Methane is 50x stronger than c02 and related to oil production and cattle, more than anything else. C02 would be the 2nd priority by comparison. Cloud water vapor? Is not driving runaway warming. Fact. You're being stupid intentionally.
Being stupid is not going to solve runaway AGW as the methane ice on the arctic sea floor begins to bubble up in a feedback cycle. Clouds are not the culprit. Stop being retarded, scientists actually STUDY THINGS.
You have a way to go before your hypothesis will be on the level. Peer review I'm afraid is going to be a brutal and instant education for you, should you ever attempt it. (We know, you will not.)
"Low information people" like yourself want to blame clouds literally verbatim, lol. You couldn't have picked a less convincing line of bullshit if you tried again, I'd wager... "wanna bet?" - Lol, no doubt.
The Earth has been in a constant flux of changes ever since it began. It will continue to do so and we as human's must adapt as we have for thousands of years. I am not a climate denier I am a climate change accepter.
The point is that the climate doesn't give a fuck about per person emissions, it's only the total which matters.
Bill got caught lying 12-25 times repeatedly stating "Blood plasma is sterile" and then later that "The Chinese Govt does not directly censor Chinese citizens" and other absolute bullshit head-in-ass lies. You're not trustworthy.
You are not a source of information that anyone should or even could trust, knowing your dishonest history. Sorry. That's what accountability means when you get caught lying repeatedly, over and over, even after corrected.
You're a liar, Bill. I strongly doubt it will be LIARS LIKE YOU who will save anything from anything, not even your reputation for using multiple shell accounts to thumb yourself up will be saved from fact-checked reality.
Blood plasma is at no point sterile. If you stopped lying to take the correction on the minor point and admitted you were wrong?
You'd be 100% more respectable. Instead? What are you but a denialist?
When do we get forests on Antarctica again? The fossilized record reflects a long wait between forested periods on Antarctica.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Unfortunately the results are predictably political, with the sole purpose of getting people elected.
If it were true, why wouldn't Al Gore spend his millions on the environment instead of waterfront property?
Temperature derived from Ice core in Greenland.
https://ibb.co/DrxxhK7
Keep trusting the boomers, it's working out great so far!
Telepresence robots are actually robots, Iggy moron and yes, what the US does will be mirrored by Asia - or Asia will fall. We exported the oil crazy TO them originally, we can export environmentalism as well. You're a pussy.
so solar output doesnt matter now when talking about climate but it matters suddenly in the juriassic?
Solar output has slowly increased over billions of years as the Sun has gotten older and denser. It was not "suddenly".
Is NOTHING compared to the age of the Earth
Suppose you're setting on the couch in your home, and you feel a bit cold. You look around to see that somebody left a window open.
How long, relative to age of the Earth, should you wait until you conclude that the open window is the cause of the cold ?
It can get worse if we keep burning fossil fuels. The projection is just the minimum.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Lame excuse for doing nothing. Yes, it does matter what everybody does. BTW, both India and China are far ahead of the US in installing renewables. For some reason, they have more enlightened leaders.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Mr. Anderson.
USA is the second or third biggest emitter, so it matters.
USA has besides Kuwait and some other exotic places the highest emission per capita: hence for them it is the easiest to reduce emissions. China can't, albeit they are working hard on renewables, nukes and electric cars/buses.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
While you were saving the planet, he studied The Blade.
Well you mischaracterized it intentionally, as you do often. Regardless of who here reads it, if your lie about it up front is as a pretext and nobody challenges you, that being allowed to stand is just an ossified fallacy.
You're a trained BULLSHIT ARTIST you lying faggot Brett Buttfuck, lol. NOBODY IS BUYING IT MORON.
skipping school
Lots of kids hanging out in the neighborhood park, smoking weed yesterday.
Have gnu, will travel.
Your political and religious masters have bred you to be slaves to their administrations. You have no other rights than to die as slaves.
I see plenty of "I'm With Her" stickers on SUVs as they pulled up to the McDonalds drive thru window. While you might try blaming the Republicans (less than 100 million people on a planet with 7.5 billion. Do the math there, bub) the fact is that Democrats really don't do shit either but scream for more taxes and more government. How about cleaning up your own back yard first. Give up your SUVs, your jet setting and your precious bacon then maybe you'll have some room to talk. Anything less is pandering bullshit, goose stepping for Big Government foolery.
No, you're not a scientist, trained or otherwise.
If you had been a scientist, you would know that tolerance is not a concept in the sciences at all. Scientific discourse has its own system of merit, based entirely on factual evidence and on correct use of logic for reasoning about that evidence. Together, these components create a meritocracy for value judgements, under which discourse is acceptable only in proportion to where it lies on this scale of scientific merit.
Discourse without scientific merit is not bestowed any tolerance whatsoever. At best, it is dismissed politely, or simply ignored.
Both feel the need to over-compensate and will destroy the human race as a result.
Lets just get on with it! NUKE CHINA!!!
For those who doesn't understand what "terrible" means in this context.
90% of the worlds population lives in coastal cities/towns.
When those have to be relocated you won't be able to stay out of it even if you live off grid.
First you are just proclaiming the militancy of your clique of idiots and morons, second, not even you will actually DO anything if the "tyrrany" of "not fucking things up" oppresses you.
i would much rather kill you and your "friends" than live under your rules.
I mean, you can kill me and my friends, but you will still have to live under those rules if you want to survive the climate change.
we are in the shadows armed to the teeth and one day you will cross that line. i have nothing left but extreme violence even after i pay half my income to your police state while i do all of the work (and you do none) and pay all of the taxes and raise my kids (while you try to indoctrinate them).
in the end, just as it has always been, killing your kind is the only cure.
Bullets doesn't really have much impact on rising sea levels.
What are you going to do, shoot the next tornado or heat wave?
This isn't some movie where the 'hero' can just shoot himself out of any trouble.
You are making a political point to get over you agenda, so EVEN IF your clam was correct (you aren't, the paper includes citation and support, unlike your BS denialism), you'd be wrong to call it out (political PR = WRONG to you).
Beause there ARE environmentalists who live off the grid, home grown, vegan lifestyles and YOU then whinge and bleat and scream in terror at them"trying to make us all do what they do!!!!".
Then again deniers gotta keep BSing, because reality isn;t pandering to their political ideology.
You entire argument is centered around "We are not worst yet so we don't need to improve"
Did "America first" turn into "America second to last" suddenly?
Either way, where do you think we will end up if we keep looking at total output.
Are you willing to bring the US down to the same total output as for example Poland or would you suddenly think that metric is unfair because of the much smaller population size?
Per capita is a fairly reasonable metric to use since it means that everyone may output about the same amount.
If you want an even fairer metric you would have to take into consideration any effort to capture CO2 back since that will help countries that uses their larger area for forests or similar.
You might recall, if you paid attention in History class, Earth went through an unnatural Ice Age period that was caused by an unexpected asteroid crashing into the Earth. Since then the Earth has been correcting itself and warming itself back up. The warming isn't going to end any time soon, but know that it is normal and there is nothing you can do about it. Don't be foolish and think that you can interfere with a natural process.
I don't think we can do anything about it. The motivation to change will not be there until it's too late. I don't think a change in government will do much either. We can't social engineer or politic our way out of this problem. Maybe science/technology will deliver solutions but again, it's asking a lot.
But while I may want to do some sacrifice, e.g. I am already trying to use only public transport and biking, low electricity footprint, I am rioting in the street if you try to touch to my meat consumption. It is one thing to not have bitten at the forbidden fruit. But now I have eaten it and it is very tasty, I am not giving it up until I am dead. Eating tasty stuff is one of the only few guilty pleasure I truly have. I am doing it until I am dead or unable to.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Lots of kids hanging out in the neighborhood park, smoking weed yesterday.
That certainly beats obsessing over the end of the world.
This is getting almost as ludicrous as "ancient astronaut theorists say yes".
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Hey now, wait a minute... Until I get my spice rubs and BBQ sauce ready, there will be NO cow burning!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And yet - China emits twice the CO2 as the US. If you want to say CO2 is the problem, then you MUST address China's massive CO2 output. Any discussion that does not address their output is simply worthless.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
China has twice the CO2 output as the US. And it's projected to keep climbing. The US has flat-to-falling emissions. If you don't want to make China's CO2 output a priority, then you're not serious about CO2 as a source of climate change.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Look at Venezuela. They completely eliminated their carbon footprint last week..
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Not apparently as new as you.
It matters because the Jurassic was tens of millions of years ago, which is the scale on which solar flux changes appreciably. It does not if we're speaking about mere centuries.
Ezekiel 23:20
And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Are you on drugs?
Ezekiel 23:20
This is the equivalent of those sob-story TV ads showing some kid in a third-world country who will DIE unless you send money NOW. Hint: the money doesn't get to the kid and the kid's gonna die anyway.
By the same token, since temperature rise is inevitable, then you don't need my money.
He wasn't saying that but it seems like a possibility.
Once temperature hits a level where complex life can't thrive you will get a new form of desert at the equator pushing away the forests, but there is a lot of middle ground between what we have now and that point.
So it doesn't seem unlikely that there will be some new belts we haven't seen before while the arctic as we know it disappears.
Scientists fear Arctic heating could trigger a climate "tipping point" as melting permafrost releases the powerful greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, which in turn could create a runaway warming effect.
Melting poles also means changing albedo: sea is darken than ice, and hence it traps more heat from the sun.
I noticed you conveniently left one small detail.....the US has done more to reduce its CO2 output more than any other country on the planet. If fact the US who doesn't participate in the Paris accords is doing better at lowering CO2 than any country in Europe except for the UK which is a distant second place. Might want to chew on that for a while before you attack the US.
I'm gonna make a raft out of climate change deniers
This is all George Soros/CFR/Bilderberg/Skull and Bones/etc scheme to control you and take your money and stuff.
We have been lied to about this stuff for decades. Al Gore is one of the chief offenders. We were told that each year we would have a dozen Category 5 hurricanes hitting the mainland US. We were told that Miami would be under 10 feet of water. Lies, lies, lies. They keep throwing shit against the wall hoping it would stick. I've noticed that none of the criminals promoting AGW have given up their mansions, seaside villas, ski lodges, SUVs, or private jets. Kind of funny, isn't it? How many mansions and SUVs does Al Gore own? Hmmm?
Pros
Global warming means there is more rain in the Sahara leading to a greening of the Sahara and fewer famines
Global warming means the Arctic passage opens up for shipping reducing shipping costs for Chinese exporters to Europe
Global warming means more rains and greater growth of the rain forest in Indonesia and the Amazon
Global warming means stronger monsoons and a higher productivity for rain fed agriculture in India
Global warming means land in Canada and Siberia becomes availbale for agriculture
Cons
Global warming means stronger Hurricanes in Florida
Global warming means stronger droughts in California
Global warming means colder winters in Western Europe (due to the gulf stream shutting down)
Global warming means certain low lying areas will be flooded and populations will try to immigrate to US and Europe
So please stop framing Global Warming as a problem for the world. Its a problem for NATO countries. Rest of the world benefits from Global Warming. If NATO countries want the rest of the world to stop burning fossil fuels they better pony up .
**Life is too short to be serious**
I'm sure we could push the temperature rise to a balmy 8 degrees. It'll be tough, but I have faith in humanity.
Bullshit. You just demonstrate you know nothing about the sun, solar cycles, minimums, maximums, how those cycles overlap to create extreme minimums and maximums or just about anything else. After you learn to tie your shoes, go read a 3rd grade book about the sun. It will teach you vastly more than the negative you think you know now.
Well said. The Cult of Global Warming is one step away from Jonestown. It's time for the Global Warming crowd to practice what they preach and commit mass suicide in order to lower their carbon footprint.
Put down the bong, Bevis. Get real.
The hoaxing continues. Still zero evidence that this has any effect beyond a possible small rise in sea levels. Reminder that all ranting about desertification, hurricanes, tornadoes, and mass flooding are baseless hypothesis to push an agenda.
It's been thirty years since I ate a mammal but I think you might want to drain the blood out before you light 'em on fire. Just saying.
...hence for them it is the easiest to reduce emissions.
Right, because population density and existing infrastructure don't factor into it at all.
China also has over 4 times the population, which means each Chinese citizen is outputting half the CO2 as each American. You're suggesting that the people who are already doing twice as good as you do better while you do nothing.
I'd also like to see a citation for China emitting twice as much as the US in 2018. I can't find one up to date. What I do find is that China is actually decreasing it's CO2 emissions (they're actually basically stable) unlike America which is once again increasing them.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
This article says the opposite, https://insideclimatenews.org/... with China slightly lowering its emissions over the last 4 years while America is back to increasing them.
Unluckily it is really hard to find good info,as this article makes different claims, https://www.carbonbrief.org/an...
Still, why don't you just say the rest of the world outputs more carbon then the relatively small USA so everyone else has to stop why we continue to burn shit like crazy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Guess what happens at the end of an ice age? The Arctic gets warmer.
Gasp!
Thank you very much, I learned about stellar evolution back in high school so I know how main sequence stars behave. Since we're talking about paleoclimate, those 1+% changes in mean flux are important, not your silly short-term cycles with a 0.1% amplitude.
Ezekiel 23:20
Do you even know what ppm means? Or what 400 ppm represents on a planetary scale? No. You do not. Please tell us given the volume of the atmosphere how much CO2 each person needs to create to being the CO2 level to CO2. Do not forget about the other processes and feedback loops which use up more CO2 as the levels rise such as increased plant growth.
After all, as you say, you are a scientist and therefore magically special.
No, you have zero chance of doing this, because you are a loudmouth ignorant moron relying on faux authority as an argument.
"We have just 12 years to change everything otherwise we're all doooooooooomed." - Courtesy of every flappy headed left wing environmentalist since the 1970's. Personal favorite, was in 1990 if we don't do something now - RIGHT NOW - the world will end in 12 years. Man it's you've been crying wolf for over 100 years, on 12 year cycles and it still hasn't happened...and yet you wonder why fewer people support it.
Om, nomnomnom...
Are you WindBourne by any chance?
Some people (Americans) really are worse for the environment than others.
co2 is less harmful than methane, so why not just flare all the methane and be done with it? doesn't fix the problem, but sounds like a good mitigation strategy
Burning methane by flaring it is what makes the CO2 (well one of the ways). And the difference in damage between the two isn't enough to make your proposal help at all. Perhaps leave this stuff to the (not software) engineers?
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
It's not America's fault we are only the second worst.
--
LynnwoodRooster - Browsing with my head up my arse
well we may be headed into an extended minimum so that could help us out... or screw us if solar output drops too much, you know whichever.
Even in the case of inevitability... What are they going to do to address the problem, because is a problem that has to be fixed... and Mars or the Moon are not real options, I know it sounds cool and stuff but the people there will destroy it too and those are harsh environments that will make their lives a living hell for thousands of years... if they are lucky enough to survive without eating each other.
Even though America is the 2nd worst in total, and among the worst per person. It's not the fault of America because they decreased a tiny bit?
In other news, WindBourne is getting better because he only lied 9 times this week instead of 10.
No 9 is still way too high.
You fail common sense.
About everyone in the world feels from their own experience now that the CO2 story was a hoax, that Sun spots are much more influential on the Earth temperature than anything man made. So there's very little time left to tax the populace with green carbon tax. If we don't take the urgent action, those deplorable will keep their disposable income to do their deplorable things, like owning their own cars and driving them anywhere they pleased.
There is no greenhouse gases of any influence, because Co2 is weak and the concentration of others, methane etc, is negligible. The present global cooling clearly demonstrates that changes in the behaviour of the Sun is much more important than anything humans can do.
Well on the other hand lefties esp. ones like Alexandria from south of the US border know a thing or two on how to placate the Sun by building pyramids and doing some human sacrifices on them. So the carbon tax might be a lesser evil, even if inefficient.
It's not America's fault. We are only 2nd worst.
--
LynnwoodRooster - Browsing with my head up my arse
Yes. That is the cold, hard, truth.
America has done the most to increase the amount of CO2 than any other country.
China may catch up eventually (in decades) but America is still the clear leader in total CO2 emitted so far.
Cows are difficult to keep lit and hard drawing.
Hi climate sceptics,
I know you are afraid that there is some group of people out there who wants to take something away from you (meat, money, pickup truck) based on what you see as trumped up (do you see what I did there?) charges. HOWEVER, I think there is a way to find some common ground, particularly as regards to geopolitics.
We all know that major oil exporting nations include OPEC (mostly Middle Eastern countries, like Iran, Saudi Arabia), Venezuela, Russia, etc. The EU particularly relies on Russian gas, and Russia has been shown to be a nation that loves to meddle with elections and cause strife via social media, hacking, etc. In sum, a very large percentage of the world's hydrocarbons come from what the West would consider bad actors.
Knowing that, would you not agree that Instead of giving money to Russia or Iran, we should be installing solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and driving electric cars? Would it not be better to spend that money in your home nation, to your own people? That is the part, I think, we can all agree on, regardless of which reasons we use to get to that conclusion.
You seem like a smart chap.
Why do you think the US is still far worse than Europe, even after it decreased by more?
Might want to chew on that for a while before you defend the US.
Cite or STFU.
You are correct, the only reasonable solution is AGW is real (and even if it is not real) is to build modern nuclear power plants.
Artctic is a hot spot of global warming.
PS. I am doing a data research/selflearning on NOAA data on precipitation now.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
We at some point have to listen to science.
Gotta love a lefitst authoritarian who demands we listen to science when it allows him to grab more power as in this case, and ignore it when it tells him that there are only 2 genders, and the brain differences are quantifiable in the womb. This isn't about science, it never was. It's about scientists getting their next grant to pay their bills which feeds people like you using it to consolidate more power.
HEY! You leave bacon out of this motherfucker. I will fly a plane into your fucking house if you try to take bacon away from me.
--Highdude702(mods)
You're the reason republicans must be exterminated, indiscriminately.
That's model is too simple. Weather & climate is more like a web than a linear chain because when one thing changes it affects many other variables.
Ice loss does mean warmer water, but as the temperature increases so does the evaporation rate. More evaporation means more water vapor in the air which means more cloud cover, which increases the albedo, and if that increases enough it could even cause the water temperature to drop and even start to freeze again.
we are in the shadows armed to the teeth and one day you will cross that line.
You are in the shadows. An internet tough guy armed with a keyboard and an internet connection who will do nothing and not matter to anyone.
Cite or STFU.
Dust off a copy of TIME, OMNI, or Scientific American. Then you can watch the new generation of retards and their current puppet Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spew the same shit, oh and Al Gore. He really likes those 12 year doom cycles. Personally? I'm also enjoying her tantrums over the "fact checkers" calling her out on her shit.
Om, nomnomnom...
Switzerland is hardly mild.
Israel has hot summers and spews about 50% of the carbon per capita of the US.
Sweden, with its cold winters, is about 33% that of the US (theyre smart and use nuclear power for 40% of their energy).
'cos I am calling utter bullshit on your claim to have ANY higher education. And, no, lying your arse off is nothing to do with "free speech", which you only want when it protects you, anyway. Reality doesn't give a flying fuck what you want to say, it is what it is, no matter what bollocks you spout.
And science has fuck all to do with speech. Your ignorance is not the equal of my education, no matter what you claim is "free speech".
Your post was just a proclamation of how you interpreted it to be a political piece. Fuck all about the content.
See, I read both the paper AND your posts, fuckwit.
Instead of making up your own insane ranty shit, how about you instead make a case? Not just "proclamations" about "current puppet Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez", your political insanity making a claim there, or "I'm also enjoying her tantrums", which is merely you enjoying the nutbar echo chamber or, as you prefer to claim "fact checkers" who have no facts and you don't check.
It needs stuff mined. Live in a tree.
You're the hypocrite. "Leader of the free world.... Uh, china should go first....".
One man's inevitable calamity is another man's droolworthy challenge.
I'm sure some "cogent, studied, factually-handy, helpful and altruistic" Republican friends will be here to child-splain to us [...] So the question becomes : How long are we going to entertain these no-credential no-science-background 1950's "I got mine's" and their Fox News hot air before we ignore them and begin to really address this?
When the alternative isnt you.
Is this where we are now?
Letting transgender people get along with their lives is seen as justification for ignoring climate science?
No USA is falling fast down the list, india will be like China around 2060
per capita doesn't matter when the big places under central control are ramping up hugely.
No point in 350 million USA reducing emissions a bit, won't matter when billions are going into high gear. math wins, feel good greenie bullshit trying to lower U.S. living standard loses.
No it's solid logic and math. 350 million USA people won't matter when billions are ramping up their emissions.
You're confused, those "renewables" they're installing don't make up for the huge coal plants they're bringing on globally, not just at home but around the world as they go to near colonial model.
they're not enlightened, they're ramping up the carbon pullution
you're fooled by token greenie B.S.
Seems odd. You make a quantifiable claim (Multiple people claim in NEWS ARTICLES that the world was going to end in 12 years) and that they have been doing it for 100 years.
When asked to cite a source for the claim, you tell people to go read all the issues of Time, Scientific American or other NEWS MAGAZINES to bolster your claim.
I think you are confusing NEWS pundits and their demagoguery with Science. Also, I think you have this whole concept confused. When YOU make a claim, it is not up to others to CITE YOUR sources. It is up to you to bolster your claim with actual evidence. The fact that you are missing this important piece is why you are failing to see that the Science and NEWS are not equal.
No scientist has made a claim in a scientific paper that the world was going to end in 12 years. What news analysis says about science is clearly biased (as your examples of the current state of science show how out of touch with the actual research you really are).
Nice try though. I bet you thought you were being extremely clever.
lolz sorry but Switzerland is indeed mild, winter temperatures only 28 - 45 deg F. Hell that's early spring here.
Minus 20 to 30 F, that's the kind of shit you'll see in midwest and north winters. Those pansy swiss would die.
and you bring up the Mediterranean climate of Israel?!! are you fucking shitting me, that is VERY mild climate.
You put Swiss or Israelis in their "winter clothing" outside for an hour in the weather we had two weeks ago and they would be dead, that's a fact. you think high 20s F is "cold"? you have no idea what cold is, when every cold snap has a body count in the news
See also: Sweden, which uses about 1/3 of the carbon per capita of the USA.