Slashdot Mirror
Last Time CO2 Levels Were This High, There Were Trees at the South Pole (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Trees growing near the South Pole, sea levels 20 metres higher than now, and global temperatures 3C-4C warmer. That is the world scientists are uncovering as they look back in time to when the planet last had as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it does today. Using sedimentary records and plant fossils, researchers have found that temperatures near the South Pole were about 20C higher than now in the Pliocene epoch, from 5.3m to 2.6m years ago.
Many scientists use sophisticated computer models to predict the impacts of human-caused climate change, but looking back in time for real-world examples can give new insights. The Pliocene was a "proper analogy" and offered important lessons about the road ahead, said Martin Siegert, a geophysicist and climate-change scientist at Imperial College London. "The headline news is the temperatures are 3-4C higher and sea levels are 15-20 metres higher than they are today. The indication is that there is no Greenland ice sheet any more, no West Antarctic ice sheet and big chunks of East Antarctic [ice sheet] taken," he said.
Well, this should set off all the denialists quite nicely.
It's almost like CO2 isn't an issue.
Born too late to conquer the Americas.
BTW, what round for dinosaur?
This is yet another demonstration that CO2 by itself is not causing much warming. There are other factors involved, including solar output...
That's the worst thing about the whole scare-mongering over global warming, the misleading people into believing such a simplistic picture of a complex system. It lets many believe they are doing something to help, when in fact they are doing nothing or possibly making things worse.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Earth seemed to survive the last time CO2 levels were that high. We're still here.
Bit early to be demanding we dismantle society in order to "save the planet," don't you think?
Don't let the lumber industry hear about this.
Until next year when they say
WE WERE WRONG
So sick of this scientific bullshit.
Hereâ(TM)s where we recreate EXACTLY what MIGHT have occurred thousands or millions of years ago.
Yeah sure.
Fake news.
Co2 is plant food. the more Co2 the more plants and a greener world. Just what do climate change opponents have against trees?
**Life is too short to be serious**
We weren't here the last time CO2 levels were that high. Yes, the Earth survived. Hell, the Earth survived the Dinosaur Killer strike, but a shit ton of species died.
It's hard to assess with statements like that whether the poster is just playing a rhetorical game, or is indeed a complete fucking moron.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
more like tragedy of commons.
The same as you put within reach of your toddlers who will soon blow your head off.
The debate is over.
"Money is morality" is the only morality you will care to understand.
Right aoc?
I dont deny the world is warming.
I question why is that a bad thing?
Use of fossil fuels lets developing countries develop much faster so that by the time say Bangladesh needs flood defenses of the type Netherlands has , it can afford them.
Not to mention a warmer world means more rains, a greener Sahara, less drought prone India and a greened Australian desert.
Increased food security- as the world has warmed since the 70s the incidence of famine in Africa has gone down.
Yes there are some losers - Florida gets worse hurricanes, California Drought-Flood cycle gets more extreme, UK freezes as the Gulf stream shuts down but on net balance more countries benefit than lose from Global Warming.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Dibs on rice paddies and wheat farming in Patagonia. Easy access to Asia, Europe, NA without Panama canal. yay!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Long before sea levels rise 20 m, annual weeds would have become perennial. Bugs and vermin killed by annual frost will thrive year around. Pesticide and weedkiller usage will skyrocket, and all the farm hands will die of cancer or leave the fields. When the North American break basket is lost, the global famine will wipe out most of the infrastructure and civilization. The surviving Homo sapiens postapocalipsia will simply pitch their thatched huts on higher and higher ground from the seashore.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
When new animal species (including our ancestors) sprang up, existing species diversified and successfully spread across all the continents.
Sounds good, man. I can hardly wait.
Have gnu, will travel.
So much agenda going on here. More climate stories than tech.
Be the change you want to see in the world: buy cheap land, fill it with solar panels, and tie it to the grid.
I think they just proved that average temperature of the Earth is not a function of CO2 in the atmosphere. If it was, then anytime the Earth had this CO2 level you would have the same temperature. Right?
Sure, that's it, money is morality, it has nothing to do with enjoying modern life and not thinking we should tear it all down, kill the majority of the human population, and go back to living in caves, like the global warming alarmists demand.
There's still nothing linking global warming to human causes anyway. Like I said, it's a bit early to be destroying modern civilization over a bit of CO2.
That isn't too bad - at least it indicates that the level seen today has been achieved using "all natural" methods. Earth (or rather, life) survived then - it will survive again.
Granted, I have no doubt this is man made, but I am not worrying myself about it because for the most part, it's not going to help. We'll continue dumping CO2 into the atmosphere because it's too convenient not to. We just cross our fingers and hope that the peak levels aren't irrecoverable and that at that point we will find alternative energy sources (since the fossil fuels will be depleted) and the planet slowly reclaims the CO2 back into the soil over time.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Weird it's almost as if a system as large and complex as the earth's climate can't change on a moment's notice the second a large quantity of greenhouse gas is hastily introduced
You should tell that to the people who were promoting fear around runaway warming (even though as the headline points out, CO2 has been this high before with no runaway warming). Or maybe you should talk to multiple politicians today claiming we have only 10 years to solve this problem...
If as you say the climate in fact changes more slowly the the fear-mongers claim, then why will the natural decrease in CO2 output as alternative energy uptake increases across the world, not take care of the problem long before there is significant warming? Don't forget the planet itself is a natural consumer of CO2, acting to scrub out excesses over time as long as output diminishes.
Unless you wish to change you story that is, and start claiming CO2 has a rapid effect on climate after all. Otherwise why should we fear it?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's funny 'casue it's Chinese doing most of the pollution.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
shrug, Saudi Aramco and Chinagov are in the top five emissions producers. They're not run by "white men"
the South Pole was not located at the South Pole 5.3 million years ago.
People die. Why is dying a bad thing? So I can murder you fine...
Fossil fuels do not let developing countries develop much faster. Technology does. Africa leapfrogged the first world in mobile phone penetration because it didn't have the cash to wire all over Africa, but mobile station relays were much cheaper and tech allowed it when the first world could not when it made its telephone system.
No, it doesn't mean more rains. More water in the air and stays there. Cassius-Clapeyron relation, dude. When it falls it falls heavier, meaning floods. It leaves sooner meaning more droughts too. Sahara isn't greener for it, nor are your claims about India or Australia anything connected with Australia.
The floods destroy crops. The droughts destroy crops. The rising sea levels destroy crops. As technology increased the incidence of famine dropped. CO2 didn't do it.
So, yes, there's huge swathes of denial there. You've denied all of reality to arrive at your ideologically required conclusion: you should not pay to clean up your mess.
AFAIK, we're not allowed anything larger than a 50 BMG so I hope that'll do the trick.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Although drowning NYC - I have mixed feelings about that ;-)
Global warming will NOT destroy the environment or kill all life on earth. It WILL however make it REALLY uncomfortable for the big hairless apes who like to build their cities along coastlines. We're not destroying the earth at all. We're making it less habitable for ourselves.
SJWs are raving nutjobs. There's no situation where they won't scream about race whether the conversation calls for it or not. It's best to simply ignore them, but we may have to bring back the gulags for these poor degenerates if they won't stop their raving.
"Money is morality" is the only morality you will care to understand.
Standard of living is morality. Do you have a better system? Without invoking religion, that's pretty much what we've got, whether you dress it up as utilitarianism or some other way to objectively measure "the good" that we should seek to maximize across humanity.
Personally, I think freedom is more important than standard of living, but it's hard to quantify that, or articulate a clear moral code to maximize it, other than simply defining "standard of living" to be heavily biased towards "freedom".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Your all-or-nothing thinking shows you're not smart. We don't have to """dismantle""" society. We have to CHANGE THE WAY WE DO THINGS. Fucking deal with it.
And then we have water, which doesn't consume, but absorbs and acidifies.
The only thing water does when absorbing LOTS of CO2, is becomes more neutral - not acidic.
If you want people to take you seriously, stop using the language of fear and get your terminology correct.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Using sedimentary records and plant fossils, researchers have found that temperatures near the South Pole were about 20C higher than now in the Pliocene epoch, from 5.3m to 2.6m years ago.
This underscores the Big Lie of the environmentalists. That is namely that they're "saving the planet". Bullshit! As the great philopher George Carlin pointed out, "the planet is fine, the people are fucked".
Even that likely isn't true. Humanity will likely survive. I'm not sure if we'll live very well however, and that much warming will put a lot of our cities under water and ruin a lot of what we've developed. It could set us back 1000 years.
Serious question: Why do you think so?
Because with the CO2 levels we have, predicted rise is only around 2C.
The same CO2 levels that once had the atmosphere at a far greater degree of warming.
Thus there must be some other factor involved in warming climate besides CO2 alone.
The rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 in the past ~150 years is essentially an impulse to what is admittedly a complex system.
Correct.
a suggestion of what is possible once the system settles
Serious question for you - why would you assume the earth would settle at CO2 levels we have now? Since the rise is artificial, once the CO2 is absorbed back into the system, and human output decreases over time (inevitable given the uptake in alternative energy), WHY would you, or how could you assume the CO2 levels today are anywhere near a steady state? Indeed a rise of 2C of warming means lots more flourishing plant life around the globe. Guess what plants absorb from the atmosphere...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The sahara isn't greening. You're repeating the same denier BS they ran with 12 years ago. It was debunked 5 years ago.
No, the monsoon is flooding, "working better" means more flooding. It doesn't mean more crop-useful rainfall.
Heavier rains fall everywhere. So walls and storage will be where, exactly? Everywhere?
What's better for development? Not fossil fuels. It's better to use modern tech, and I now see why you troll your denial in such blatant dishonesty: you want to troll, you want to slag off SJWs because you hate anyone with a different political outlook who doesn't pander to you.
The damage is already here, and huge. Fuck, even trump has cashed in on the damage from AGW twice for Mar-a-Lago.
Renewables are here now. And the wind blows everywhere, the sun shines everywhere. Oil doesn't flow everywhere.
It's better to use Renewables than fake your concern that "the nig-nogs won't be able to develop!" when it's patently clear you merely want to avoid paying to clean up your mess and to piss people off with your utter fantasy rhetoric about fossil fuels, based in nothing but wishes and propaganda.
I think that conservative morality is actually just more localized than liberal morality. Liberals are also much more diverse in their ethical concerns. Conservatives: "The most important thing, morality-wise, is the effect that something will have on my family, my friends, my community, my country(wo)men, my species, my planet; in more-or-less that order." Liberals generally take exception to this ordering in some specific way. Socialists tend to be closer to objecting to this ordering altogether.
Future generations of arbitrary peoples halfway around the world are therefore the moral object of *least concern* to conservatives. In general, conservatives would consider it far more moral to hoard personal wealth *now* that can then be used for the immediate benefit of their loved ones.
Frankly, you're not going to be able to convince them otherwise. If you want to reach conservatives and get them on board with any of this climate change stuff, you need to bring the conversation close to home, and convince them that their grandkids (not grandkids in general.... THEIR grandkids) stand to suffer as a consequence of current inaction.
In any case, name-calling is *not* going to win you any conservative allies, and this comment is actually destructive to the cause of getting climate change under control. In this light, since you actually believe climate change is a problem, and you are actively working against a solution, if *anyone* is guilty of immoral conduct here it is you.
Past heightened CO2 levels were not anthropogenic
There is no evidence that past CO2 levels and current CO2 levels have different causes. As opposed to part of a natural cycle.
There is no evidence that past CO2 levels interfered with existing life
There is no evidence the current CO2 levels will interfere with existing life. Political speculation and wishful thinking are not evidence.
There is evidence that when the environment changes humans and other lifeforms adapt.
Le ebin derp, bro! Which of the 87 genders are you?
Stating the truth with the intent to mislead is the same thing as lying.
As far as I can tell, all Liberals do is talk about climate change, while either doing nothing at all that actually helps, or actually do great harm (like so-called "environmentalist" over the years have done by stopping nuclear energy projects, or by people like Al Gore flying private jets all over the world).
Meanwhile Trump seems to be the only one actually trying to fix the climate.
Really, it's a matter of historical ignorance to claim conservatives do not want to help the environment, as all of the strongest supporters of the environment to date have been conservative (like Theodore Roosevelt, and now Trump).
Furthermore, from traveling the world a great truth I have seen is that countries that have poor economies do a great deal of harm to the local environment, those that are well off do not. So the absolutely first step of a true environmentalist is to ensure a healthy economy and a prosperous people, who have the kind offer time and resources totally help where it counts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Sod the asteroid strike, the earth survived 15 ton, 20 ft tall bipedal walking mouths with teeth as long as steak knives. I'm pretty sure we'll be OK.
Hey dipshit, humans weren't around for either of those two things. That's the whole point.
I don't respond to AC's.
And? Miraculously life survived
Or are you just talking out of the same orifice your head is stuck in, like every psychotic rightwinger nutjob?
That works much better when change is gradual.
The fact that CO2 levels were as high then as they are now, yet our temperatures are much lower currently provides absolute proof that changes are gradual.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So why not now?
And we just had people on that provax story asking why people don't trust the experts anymore.
Don't bash science. It has its place. Man is just trying to learn about his environment. The takeaway here is that polar bears are still here after trees were found in Antarctica :-)
More climate stories than tech.
Slashdot isn't a tech site, dipshit. It's "News for Nerds". Climate change is news for biology/ecology/sociology nerds.
I don't respond to AC's.
I don't have mixed feelings.
Different AC here, trolling along a different vein.
According to your moral code, I should sacrifice the things that make me happy for the benefit of future generations.
These future generations:
A) don't exist, so they have no moral standing.
B) won't and can't do anything in return for me, so they offer me no incentive.
C) are just a race of animals, no more deserving of existence than any other race of animals
D) will have an egocentric moral code that puts themselves at the center of the universe (just like I do)
E) are humans, and as such will be selfish, violent, and stupid.
Sorry, but I am not seeing any good reason to bend over backwards for these people.
But if you want to, knock yourself out.
Moving people/stuff further from the oceans won't be an issue either. Food will be plentiful, animal species will flourish. Judging from past warm earth evidence, it won't be so bad....
All I'm doing is refuting your ridiculous and moronic claims, to which all yuo can do is go "But you angry at me!!!" is your feelings hurt, buttercup? Tough shit. Oh, and climate central? Denier blogroll. No better than Breibart or an ISIS website. You deny reality.
You've been a rightwing nutjob as soon as you learnt how to pander to the RWNJ to troll people. Just like your vapid and ignorant reply did not actually prove your assertion as asked. Because you do not and cannot and care not to do so.
So you will need to pay them. Which means YOU have to pay them. Via taxes collected by politicians. Making it a political problem. No, other deserts cannot do the same. Hell, California isn't doing it either.
Last time the CO2 levels where that high, Antarctica, the continent in question, was not at the south pole ... wow, a no brainer. Firth of all the continent had not drifted so far and secondly the earth axis was different. No idea why "climate researchers" don't know basic stuff like this. (There was even a period where Antarctica already was down there, but the earth axis was in a position that half of it was in tempered zones ... one idea why some people think the mythical Atlantis could have been there before the last "ice age")
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Again, 12 years ago denier blogrolls came up with that bollocks claim (NASA doesn't say it) and it's been debunked for years. You're reporting denier blogrolls and denier "scientist" claims
You're REALLY wanting to make a gravy train for engineers. Given enough money, which they will tax you for to get, for which you will froth insanely at the brain like any rightwing nutjob, causing you to proclaim it is a gravy train, you will demand that they do something else with it. And nothing requires fossil fuels to fund the changes. Renewables are cheaper and more profitable.
Sandy. Remember?Please cite your other "predictions". Now look at denier predictions. It was supposed to be back to the 1950-80 average by 2006. Never happened. It was supposed to have ended after 1998. Didn't. It was supposed to have been all proven a hoax by 2012. Failed prediction again.
Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
You are probably being sarcastic but humanity has only demonstrated one thing over the past 20 years, we don't fucking deserve to survive. I'm off to do by bit by running the A/C with the window open.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Except its all propaganda coming from liberal news outlets. Its all biased.
And they have no plans for anything, this alarmist screed of yours does not apply to the real world. But go ahead, be afraid of a plan which may change up the economy and produce a new prosperity like when technology last took a great leap forward, by abandoning the stone age idea of "burn stuff for heat and light" that you want to keep doing, lifting all people to a new age of wealth and happiness that doesn't rely on power production based on toxic processes that destroy environments?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
it's that we know that there were extinction events the last time there was a major change in climate. And we're going through one of those changes now. It takes a scientist to prove that beyond reasonable doubt, but a layman can put two and two together.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's hard to assess with statements like that whether the poster is just playing a rhetorical game, or is indeed a complete fucking moron.
No, that isn't hard. Just toss out your false and baseless assumption that you should choose between the two things that there is evidence of. The more likely answer of course is that they're complete fucking morons playing rhetorical games.
By YouTuber Professor Stick..
TL;DW, plants "breath" through little holes and they lose water when they breath. The close those holes to prevent water loss. They have to balance water loss and CO2 intake. As temperatures rise they'll take in less CO2 to avoid the water loss. Making increased CO2 a bust for plant growth in many if not most cases.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Gosh it seems like the climate really changed quite a bit before humans came along.
Funny thing about "Freedom", it's not the fluffy-nebulous term people think it is. It's actually quantifiable well defined. "Freedom" is options.
For example: In the desktop computer world, a user largely has three degrees of freedom in regard to operating systems. Linux, Windows, Mac. If the user needs to use Microsoft Office, then their freedoms are limited further.
Similarly, "Religious Freedom" is the number and types of religions and practices allowed. In the US, we generally have a pretty high degree of religious freedom, with limitations only on extremes.
But no, "standard of living" nor "freedom" is equivalent to nor a measurement of morality. But at this point I wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend what morality even is much less be capable of it.
It's you buying all that cheap crap you don't need that makes the Chinese pollute. Have you ever thought about that?
-- Cheers!
I think you have vastly underestimated the impact of rapid climate change. A 20m sea level rise would affect every major city on a coast and as well as flat, low lying areas which are often highly populated. The shutdown of the gulf stream would not just affect the UK but all of Scandinavia as well as France, Benelux, Germany since their climate would all switch to being similar to central Canada and, having lived in both locations, not many European plants will survive a Canadian winter where it freezes in November, hits -30 to -40C in January/February and the snow only fully melts in April (we still have some on the ground now).
Of course, Canada and Russia will be doing great as more land becomes farmable and the permafrost retreats further north but when water supplies start running out in the US and elsewhere governments are going to have to take action to secure the water their citizens need to live. This is going to cause political instability and probably wars.
Climate change is definitely survivable as a species but the death, instability, famine and ecological damage it will cause is going to be terrible.
You didn't propose an alternative. You didn't even argue against my statement. You post amounts to "nuh-uh, stupid-head!" Would you care to post an intelligent response?
Do you think morality should be concerned with human happiness and well-being, or something else? If so, do you have some way to quantify that that's better than the well-studied economic approach?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
After all, the engineers won't work for free, and you insist that money will be all that's needed for your engineers gravy train. The only way to get that money is off your taxes. So dig deep, derp-o-shitfiorbrains! Oh, and the reason why national fire departments were created was because an uninsured house would burn and set fire to others, and fire volunteers would set fire to homes to drum up extra business. And banding together to get things done is called "Government". If South America get together and rob you, this is fine, because you like it when people come together non-governmentally and get things done. And robbing you blind is a thing done, so that fits all your criteria for acceptable group behaviour....
Fucking moron.
If the earth warms up and melts areas like greenland, russia, and even the South Pole, that sounds like a good thing because it will be opening up huge new areas for viable farmland.
Is that why environmental standards have made factories, refineries, cars and everything else industrial so much cleaner in the US than China? Maybe it's because the Chinese don't give a fuck.
Altrnatively, before that can happen, the open water in the arctic will provide evaporation which will condense and fall as snow over the north causing an ice age.
The weather is nuts. That's obvious. What to do about it is not at all obvious. And any "solution" that doesn't have China and India on board isn't a solution.
The world will come to an end in 12 years. It's on the internet, so it must be true. AOC said so, so it must be true. How will people to do their best to make the world a better place if they've already given up?
Personally, I see it as an opportunity. Consider how we could increase agriculture productivity if temperate and northern climates had longer growing seasons.
...laura
The flyover states used to be a lake, dumbass. When the Gulf of Mexico rises, the waters will backflood up the Mississippi river and right into your precious fields. You'll starve like the rest of us. Hell, you guys are still flooded out from a little extra rain so who's the smug prick here? You don't even have a clue, and I can't even...
Might be related to the Fort McMurray fire from 2016 and burning some 1.5 million acres of trees
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Depends on the dino, I suppose. Pretty much any elephant gun should do fine for anything short of the largest plant-eaters.
Though you might want to practice cycling the action quickly before you annoy a T-Rex....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The earth survived. The dinosaurs not so much.
Humans can survive in space and under water for short times. We haven't figured out how to grow wheat, corn, rice, coffee or beef under those conditions in quantities sufficient to actually live off them though.
Tip: We aren't the earth, we are the dinos.
Practice shutting the fuck up you boring troll feeding faggot.
I hear United Defense has some prototype Crusader mobile artillery you might be able to pick up on the cheap.
Does not this finding support the notion that there is something else besides CO2 which drives temperature, like that bright thing in the sky visible during daytime? ;-)
Paul B.
BTW, what round for dinosaur?
If humans aren't smart enough to survive, screw them. Too many other species are having to pay sooner than natural climate changes would have caused.
But I believe the climate is always changing, warmer, cooler, warmer, cooler, cold, hot, warm.
Whose to say that the super volcano under the western US won't blow and take out 50% of the US population?
There's always something coming to wipe out living things on the Earth. Gamma rays from a supernova hundreds of light years away, an asteroid that hasn't been seen yet, stupid human tricks. Something will happen and we won't be able to do anything about it.
That is the nature of the universe. Shit happens.
What happens is arseholes scream "WE CAN ADAPT", refuse to do so by, for example, stopping burning fossil fuels, and instead wait for SOMEONE ELSE in the future to do the adapting instead.
Because greenhouses have these solid wall and roof thingies. Also greenhouses require water over and above what falls out of the sky, fertilisers more than the ground supplies and inherently protect against storms, floods, frosts and most pest species.
Unlike the open sky.
Unless you're a flat earther ascribing to the firmament dome thing.
5 million years ago Antarctica was roughly where it is today. Even at a high drift rate of 10cm/yr that is still only 500 km out of position. (500 km is the distance from New York City to Pittsburgh)
So instead you scream enraged insults in place of rational thought and reason. You were utterly wrong every singe fucking time. And now you're demanding that because words that don't exist can't be read by anyone not as insane a nutbar as yourself, that they must be accused of being unable to read.
"May" does not and never has meant "has". Which is what you claimed. It doesn't even mean "will", as some other denier fuckwits have claimed. It only means"May".
And as we've all pointed out to you, that NASA link doesn't say anything about the sahara and shows rather that the region is LOSING greenery.
Having an environmental collapse would negatively impact our future economy.
Nor was he honest. He was a flat out denier who STILL insists that even though his paper he eventually wrote concluded that there was no measured effect he insisted that it was there, he just needed to look more.
Over a decade later he's still looking.
No wonder you think he was sacked, such incompetence would lead anyone else to be sacked, so why not him?
Socialist morality: steal from people to buy votes, until we don't need to vote anymore.
Fake hipster nerds.
Joe rogan interview: climate warming and the historical temperature record... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ
If CO2 levels were the same then as now why is the South Pole still a popsicle?
(Not trolling, genuinely asking.)
then dipped in honey and buried in an anthill to die. So you'll be eviscerating yourself any minute now, yes? Or is it NOT a choice of A or B like you said but a choice to keep the climate as it is by NOT fucking it over and hoping that we'll be able to move somewhere for free?
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. In the Republican Party.
That's exactly what Trump is. Trump is the first president (of any party) that publicly supported gay marriage before being elected to office. How is that not progressive?
The real meaning of progressive is that you are for the progress of humanity, moving forward. That is what Trump is doing - on social, and environmental issues alike.
You may be snowed from seeing it now, but over the course of the next six years it will become apparent even for those who do not want to see.
A prosperous country means more freedom to do ANYTHING you like, as long as you are not harming others. That is exactly what Trump supports.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yours is the fault. You HAPPEN to be white, but the actual description relevant here is "arrogant selfish pigheaded asshole". Unless you're so hating on the white man yourself that you insist that ONLY whitey can be arrogant selfish pigheaded assholes.
NYC is the third world underbelly of the US. I grew up in a third world country but even I went Ewwwww when I visited NYC. Definitely needs a pressure wash. Cant wait for the sea level rise as far as NYC is concerned. But wont happen.
New Yorkers are too well connected. They will get first dibs on the Sea Wall construction budget.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Yet here you are, insisting that a politician CANNOT lie (if their name is Trump)...
Trump said whatever got him cheers.
Google Space Mirrors
**Life is too short to be serious**
What a nonsensical spins modern pseudo science produces.
Just to distract you from the colds, floods and snowstorms outside: think about the previous geological epochs.
For a sane rational human it just shows how negligible is this CO2 effects as compared to Solar and Planetary level processes that happen irrespectively of mankind.
Prove that we can change it to what we want. Prove we have that power and knowledge. Prove that any change will be better. You can't. You're a fucking retard trolling.
Deserve? We only just managed to walk upright, and tapped cheap abundant energy to get civilization where it is. We're observing gravity waves and detecting the presence of extrasolar planets light years away, are are most likely past annihilating ourselves with nuclear weapons, and we don't deserve to exist because why? We allow ourselves to be ruled by greedy, selfish, and short-sighted people who probably believe some kind of sky-daddy is ensuring our survival?
Hmmmm... well, you might have a point.
Yet those places are already dry. So there's nothing supporting your claim. This is not a new thing for you. Even your URLs refuse to say what you claim they do.
God loves you even if you don't love him.
How to vastly reduce emitted CO2 (with technology we have or can obtain in short order):
1. Vastly increase battery production (while accelerating work on improving it).
2. Vastly improve the HVDC transmission grid - if we shift gasoline usage to energy carried on the electrical, we need over double the current capacity. Better to triple it to start with.
3. Build as much solar as makes sense (hint: it doesn't make sense in Northern Minnesota)
4. Same for wind.
5. Undo Nixon's (and all subsequent presidents) stupid move to kill Thorium nuclear research - practically unlimited fuel, no more waste than fusion, valuable medical isotopes, walk-away inherent safety, low pressure / high temperature means far simpler plant design. Baseline load.
6. Find carbon free alternatives (or vastly improved capture and sequesterization) for the production of steel / aluminum / metals, concrete, ammonia (nitrogen fixation), etc.
7. Mandate modern insulation standards on all homes, required to be brought to code before selling.
8. Kill coal power plants, and natural gas 15 years later.
The short of it is that every man, woman and child could put themselves back to the stone age in the USA - no electricity, no cars, a shitty vegan diet and no heat in their houses - and it wouldn't provide even a 20% reduction in overall emissions. Want to ACTUALLY solve the problem? Industry emits the lions share of carbon, industry is where the majority of the problem has to be fixed at.
Yeah, that's much worse than stripping people's ability to vote in the first place. That's why Republican ideas are superior.
"have to"
why? Who not just enjoy our fill. Fuck it nobody else cares.
You can joke all you want but unless we do something about the weather we are all dead in 11 years, 7 months, 3 days, and 17 hours. We must declare total war on India and China to help cull the population. We have to stop sending AIDS drugs to Africa, and let Ebola Chan do her work on the dark continent. I know this sounds extreme but we're looking at an extinction level event!!! Once we've wiped out the Chinese and Indians we can plant trees to deal with the CO2. I'm super serial guys!
Ooookkkaayyyy... "Change the way we do things." Right. How, exactly?
What all the analyses always seem to step over is the fact that fossil fuels bring prosperity, and their lack brings poverty. We have enough people in poverty already, and artificially depriving ourselves of fossil fuels will simply increase the amount of people in poverty.
Also seemingly unknown to the masses is that poverty kills. Smoking will take up to 7 years off your life, but living in poverty can take 10.
So, how many million / billion people do we want to throw into poverty by attempting to cease use of fossil fuels? Ready to be a murderer? That's what you would be if you pass a law that says, "no cars / planes / etc in 10 years."
The solution to this is going to have to come out of a lab, and cannot come out of the halls of any government. People can pass all the laws they want, and the result will only be millions of dead people, killed by poverty.
What we want to do is to ensure the research into the better battery and the better ultra-capacitor. Either or both of these will likely be found in a "practical" electric car. The "practical" electric car will be able to perform better than a 1987 Yugo, that circulated the USA in the 1987 One Lap of America, travelling 9,000 miles in 10 days and carrying 3 people (friends of mine, actually.) But the feat that no electric car can currently match is the range of the vehicle, rapid "recharging" of the vehicle, and the fuel availability for the vehicle being "almost anywhere." Tesla S cannot match the '87 Yugo. Tesla would be found on road, discharged somewhere around the country as the Yugo went over the horizon.
So, lets ensure the continued research of battery tech, ultracapacitor tech, and any other energy storage tech that might work to solve the transportation sector's roadblocks to using electricity. And, OBTW, the current electric cars are getting about 3.5 - 4 miles per KwH, a KwH around here is about 12 1/2 cents, and so at 4 mi / KwH, it will go 100 miles on $3.12. Know any gas cars that will go 100 miles on $3.12? Me either. Current car gets about 25 mpg, at near $3 / gallon for premium (which will _still_ not accelerate as well as an electric car), so 100 miles would be $12. So, the holy grail for the project may be carbonless emissions, but the side-effect of dramatically lower fuel costs would be something not to sneeze at.
So, I think the correct approach is to attempt to make electric cars viable in all respects. We do that, things get CHEAPER in a hurry, and we can then look to a horizon of fossil-fueless existence.
That's awesome!
We will build the wall to keep the Mexicans out, but we'll end up using it to keep the Gulf of Mexico out.
What worries me is the speed the transition is happening. It's not hard to imagine wars if a lot of people sudden don't have a livable place to call home.
All you have is your personal incredulity that, because Switzerland has mountains, it cannot have any part below sea level.
You were demanding that they shut up because you don't like their free speech exercised because your fee fees are more important than reality to you. Think how much we could save if we interred you and your family and spent your goods and wealth on building renewable CO2 free power generation?
Romans brought them in. England was there for millions of years before then. So wrong.
They have not always had them since then.
They have never before now been good enough to compete on a global market, and never before had to.
Wine, alcohol in general, was a form of water purification, so the quality of the grape is irrelevant.
Wine was also used in religious ceremonies, both by the Romans and later by the christian faith, and so the need for regular wine, therefore not relying on imports, was very high and overrode any need for the wine to be quality.
They never produced grapes in the northern borders, they are now.
Prove that that climate is bad for our civilisation. I dare you.
Go read the science, starting from Arrhennius, and prove their causation that is proven by the correlation is false. Good luck, moron!
Deniers making fools of themselves? Seen that loads, right here.
Description of that vid: Randall Carlson is a master builder and architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, geological explorer and renegade scholar.
So, not a scientist and builds himself up to be a contrarian "scholar". Everyone is a scholar, all they have to do is claim so and read some books. What the fuck does he know? Nothing, except where the denier gravy train exists.
Since his "scholarly work" is about "Sacred Geometry", he's just an older hairier Spirit Science. A nutball.
what he's talking about and be consistent. But he's a tryhard troll rightwing nutjob and doesn't care at all. What makes refuting even tryhard trolls are that they get REALLY pissed off when they're demolished.
Remember temperature will soon rise by over 6 million degrees!
Birdshot. Literally.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
We know CO2 was that high then, we were there then with 21st century measurement equipment. The possibility of our many pro government, pro evolution assumptions biasing our research (got to get government grants $$) is not significant because we were there then & measured CO2 levels live in person.
Yeah, right, talk about the Netherlands as a model for the planet.
You do know that the Netherlands has a culture, developed over many centuries, of heavily managing watersheds? That they also have a culture of collectivism and high demands for safety? How are you going to replicate that, exactly?
It's all bullshit. That culture isn't going to be replicated. I mean, maybe one or two countries might give it a try but most will simply refuse, due to a perceived threat to fundamental values and identity. Do you really suppose that a country like the US will suddenly go, "Hey, we need to take care of each other, no matter the cost, no matter the internal tensions, no matter how much that might inconvenience people who'd like to leverage internal schisms for their own benefit"?
I would predict that even other countries in the EU, plausibly more similar to the Netherlands in culture, would be reluctant or unable to replicate the systems and processes that make the Netherlands unique.
Then there is the issue of money. No matter what you might like to do, money will limit what you can actually do. The US has lots of money relative to the rest of the world. Do you honestly believe that the US has enough money and other resources to protect the entirety of US territory and coastlines? Nope, not even close.
The US can barely protect New Orleans. Where is the comprehensive solution for New York City? What will Boston do? How about Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego? The entire state of Florida is in danger, are you going to protect that?
Now go right round the world. There are major cities by the hundreds in peril due to sea level rise. Sure, you are going to successfully defend all those because "all we have to do is copy what the Netherlands did"!
It is far more likely we will experience massive losses of land, money and human comfort. There may be certain instances of successful water management regimes that avoid the worst. But it seems to me that the good news stories will be exceptions and the bad news stories will be the rule.
"...Trump is forced to surround himself with..."
Yeah, no. First of all, establishment GOP types have all been coerced into going Trump's way, not the other way 'round.
Second, Trump is the President. You claiming how he is "poor little Donnie, so weak and vulnerable, just give the man a break!" That's pathetic excuse making. There's nothing in Trump's behavior, words, actions, history, or anything else to suggest that Trump wants or needs exactly the people he has gathered around him.
And the people Trump has chosen to consort with are liars, spineless toadies, bootlicks, and criminals. History isn't going to be kind to Trump or his enablers.
So the GOP is to blame for not acting like the opposition by rigging their primary, for not being in the pocket of one of the candidates themselves, and for not relying on superdelegates to shut down populist candidates. I suppose that's true.
That 'incompetent twit' is going to get reelected because the left continues to act like petulant children. They've positioned themselves as being an existential threat towards the very nature of the country, of being bigoted and racist against whites and white males in particular, and condone violence and censorship to shut down political speech while at the same time demanding complete disarmament of lawful citizens.
That's a lot of distraction in keeping the president from leaning towards better environmental policies.
While perhaps factual, there is no causality proven. This is like connecting the twin towers terrorist attack to Chicago weather that day and predicting when the 4 mph wind from the se dies out and the air pressure on the clear day drops to 30, with a morning temperature of 67 and rising, then large symmetric buildings in nyc will be attacked.
When a friend explained tracking hurricanes to me, his job, he said there are 100s of variables correlated to estimate the track. Using just CO2 as a metric is ridiculous. You might as well be casting bones and reading the signs.
And more fun, when Antarctica had trees, and Greenland was forested, the tropics were, well, tropical. If global warming were real, I’d worry more about what to do with a huge expanding agricultural belt, corn growing in the Canadian provinces and the wheat belt expanded to the Yukon. Meanwhile temps in the tropics won’t be rising to much. And since we aren’t geologically primed for equatorial deserts on a widespread basis, no worries there.
However, we’re heading into a grand solar minimum. Much less solar output. Much colder climate headed our way. And we are cycling to where north america’s Summer is when the earth is farther from the sun. So i’m Expecting by 2055 the Thames will freeze over, and London will need snow removal equipment in abundance.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your assertion is complete fabrication made up to be a counter to reality you don't want expressed. *More evaporation* happens everywhere. It doesn't RAIN everywhere and it won't no matter how hot the world gets.
Natural effect of global warming is more evaporation, which has to happen more evenly than the rainfall since the rain is evaporated water, so dry places will get dryer.
Yet you whine about how 1m rise of sea level in 50 years or more is irrelevant???? Plus a glaciation event goes in a lot slower than it gets out, so it will TAKE thousands of years, on top of the only starting in tens of thousands of years time. YOU are a moron denier, who only latches on to things that comport with your ideology. Reality doesn't give a shit about your ideology.
It GAVE us time to deal with it. It doesn't any more. And morons, and you are one of them, you enable their refusal to do anythying at the very least, if not just JAQing off in fake "I so confused" bullshit, will ensure we don't. That rocket? Costs money. Taxpayers will pay for it. So it will be a socialist gravy train. Not done.
How about, instead of fucking up THIS planet and going off to one that is uninhabitable to humans (you try living at 10,000ft, that's a better atmosphere than Mars has, it'd be warmer too), we STOP fucking this one up and use the time to undo the fuckery?
Even if you don't respect Gandalf. It's easy to make claims about fictional characters, even ones you believe aren't fiction, like your silly "god" thing.
So, yeah, fucking do your research.