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"
vs
Since the Paris agreement did not require that *all* carbon emissions be halted, I'm not sure how these two statements reconcile with eachother unless the point of the story is to trigger an emotional response rather than a rational one.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs - with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? 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.
Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic... Wait, no, it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!
Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.
Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece with High Priest Al Goreleone's nod of approval.
DGW ALARM!
Climate change was an inside job.
Never forget.
hi pussy cunt bitch loser npc asshole taker:
you and your faggot friends turned your faggot noses up at 4th generation nuclear power coupled with your corrupt politicians has resulted in energy problems that has pushed progress back decades
fucking neck yourself you traitor and enemy within. you are cucked pc snowflake sjw fucking asshole who can do nothing to help but kill yourself. you are a libelous seditious slanderous traitorous treasonous lout.
^^ 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.
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.
It's enevitable so buy your Arizona beach property now, before L.A. is underwater and prices go up.
Republican trollchild "found the global warming fag" - thread over, no discussion possible.
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)
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)
Saying "pre-industrial" is worthless and manipulative.
Using 10 years as a baseline for something that is, I hope, recognized to swing wildly accross geological ages is as dishonest.
How can one decide to willingly submit to this FUD is incomprehensible.
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.
The only way to save the world is to give up any and all wealth to centralized power and kill all white people
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.
Are you simple? 3-5 is inevitable. MORE IS POSSIBLE AND LIKELY WITHOUT A COURSE CORRECTION. 3-5 is bad, 10-15 is terrible.
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.
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.
This post brought I'm sick of it. fastest-growing GAY while the project Come on baby...and THE PROJECT FACES, others what to BOUGHT THE FARM... Users With Large may do, may not with the laundry then disappeared NetB`SD posts on every day...Like offended some bought the farm...
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.
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.
*effect change, whoops.
Ah, it's the Daily Libtard Anonymous Rando Spam. Always enjoyable.
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.
"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.)
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.
Sorry Iggy, hospital "telepresence" robots actually move under their own programming and have "humanoid-esque" appearances, they are obviously robots. You couldn't accept this fact, the fact that your assumptions were wrong.
You fought it tooth and nail for 3+ hours, in the end changing nothing. Wouldn't it just have been easier to admit that something widely called a "robot" is in fact a robot especially when someone explains how it meets your own definition?
No, you didn't care. You had to fight it, you couldn't be wrong about that, dammit! You HAD to resist the fact that telepresence robots actually ARE robots.
What kind of idiot does that, I ask you for a week-later introspection of yourself? Why die on that idiotic hill?
Is NOTHING compared to the age of the Earth. It's been warmer, it's been colder, and NOT because of man, but because of that "tiny" star about 93,000,000 miles away, but, socialist have indoctrinated a couple generation of the world's population into believing it is all man's fault, to enable the world to surrender itself to a "new world order" of the United Nations. Sad that people are that naive to believe man, short of a global thermonuclear war, could "change the climate" Look up the data between earth temperatures and the sunspot activity, or lack of activity.
...if we only had all bought $60,000 Tesla cars this could have all been avoided.
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.
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 retard-level 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 directly 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 in the end.
Blood plasma is at no point sterile. That would render it useless goo. If you stopped lying to take the correction on the minor point and admitted you were wrong?
You'd be 100% more respectable as a mind.
You decide.
^^^ says the whitest guy here
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?
"That renewables are not going to save us." - Actually the market has decided that's more worth investing in than nuclear. It's not "environmentalists" - it's investors. That's why private nuclear is not succeeding, only subsidized.
Nuclear power = socialism.
Now once you accept you're dumping huge public monies into it, how much you get for the dollar is a required metric - GAO. Solar/wind beats nuclear by an order of MAGNITUDE on price per watt. There's no battle there.
Renewables won in the free market, that's why people are investing in them and they're the #1 growth sector as nuclear all but dies out, in the short term. In the long term, investment in nuclear may bring it back - differently.
That's a long way off, and your dishonesty until then probably doesn't help your argument much.
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 %.
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.
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 retard-level 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 directly 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 in the end.
Blood plasma is at no point sterile. That would render it useless goo. If you stopped lying to take the correction on the minor point and admitted you were wrong?
You'd be 100% more respectable as a mind.
You decide.
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?
Keep trusting the boomers, it's working out great so far!
Mr. Anderson.
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.
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!!!
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.
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 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
This is getting almost as ludicrous as "ancient astronaut theorists say yes".
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
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'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.
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.
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.
Guess what happens at the end of an ice age? The Arctic gets warmer.
Gasp!
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.
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.
It's not America's fault. We are only 2nd worst.
--
LynnwoodRooster - Browsing with my head up my arse
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.
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.
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.
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...
'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?
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.