Ok. I understand you don't want to talk about it. To sum up our conversation: You are not a birther. You are certain that someone faked Obama's birth certificate (because you read it on the internet), but you are not willing to speculate who did this or why. You have no idea where the president of the USA was born (hint: Hawaii, USA). Also, you believe everyone on the internet who finds you a little nutty is the same person adopting different personalities.
You forgot to add your theory about Obama's birth certificate among your list of items you are misinformed about! (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5384291&cid=47418481) That is my favourite of your many crazy theories.
Another 16 to 33 percent (10,000 - 20,000 vertebrates) are estimated to be globally threatened or endangered. 320 extinct seems like a small number. Looks like it could go either way from here.
They've been claiming for decades that if we don't do anything the sea will rise by 25m in two decades
You may want to check your sources. Likely you are being lied to, but not by scientists. More likely you've been reading denier blogs. Here is what the IPCC predicted 25 years ago: "For the 'Business-as-Usual' scenario at year 2030 global-mean sea level is 8-29cm higher than today with a best estimate of 18cm." - https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreport...
Since 1990 we've already had about 8cm of sea level rise so we have already already within the projected range and we still have 15 years to go. The rate of rise is accelerating. Even at the current rate we will see about 13 cm rise by 2030. More if acceleration continues. Not far off from the predictions of 1990. - http://climate.nasa.gov/key_in...
You are off by a few orders of magnitude whereas the scientists have already been proven correct.
Nobody is citing climate change and all the animals they cite in TFS were extinct well before humanity is supposed to have had an impact on the planet's climate.
How about TFA?
Since 1500, more than 320 terrestrial vertebrates have become extinct. Populations of the remaining species show a 25 percent average decline in abundance. The situation is similarly dire for invertebrate animal life.
Across vertebrates, 16 to 33 percent of all species are estimated to be globally threatened or endangered. Large animals – described as megafauna and including elephants, rhinoceroses, polar bears and countless other species worldwide – face the highest rate of decline, a trend that matches previous extinction events.
The scientists also detailed a troubling trend in invertebrate defaunation. Human population has doubled in the past 35 years; in the same period, the number of invertebrate animals – such as beetles, butterflies, spiders and worms – has decreased by 45 percent.
As with larger animals, the loss is driven primarily by loss of habitat and global climate disruption, and could have trickle-up effects in our everyday lives.
Identifying the drivers of these extinctions is straightforward, but stemming the loss is a daunting challenge. Animal species continue to decline in, and disappear from, even large, long-protected reserves, due both to direct impacts, such as poaching, and indirect ecological feedbacks, such as habitat fragmentation. Though hunting and poaching might seem obvious candidates for targeted policy and management interventions, there are complex social issues underlying these activities that will require coordinated and cooperative actions by nations (see Brashares et al., p. 376).
While stemming this loss remains a challenging goal, attempts to reverse the extinction trend are increasing. Such “refaunation” efforts involve a variety of approaches, including breeding animals in captivity, with the hope of reintroducing them to the wild, and assisting recolonization of areas where species have become locally extinct (see Seddon et al., p. 406). Active reversal of animal extinctions is proving just as challenging as preventing extinctions in the first place, but a few success stories provide some hope. Many note and mourn the loss of animals but have not recognized that the impacts of this loss go beyond an aesthetic and emotional need to maintain animals as a part of nature. Current research reveals startling rates of animal declines and extinctions and confirms the importance of these species to ecosystems (see Stokstad, p. 396). Further, and more broadly, it suggests that if we are unable to end or reverse the rate of their loss, it will mean more for our own future than a broken heart or an empty forest.
Arctic sea ice is trending near record lows for this time of year, abnormally warm ocean water helped spawn the earliest hurricane ever recorded to make landfall in North Carolina, and a rash of heat waves have plagued cities from India to California to the Middle East.
Yikes, that all sounds alarming right?
Except...
Except nothing. You can nitpick by look at this year or that, but look at the trend. Summer minimum extent has dropped by half and is accelerating: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
the ice figures on that site you linked to are measured from 1979. You might want to ask yourself why.
It is because that's when they launched the satellite. But I'm guessing you believe there is a conspiracy to hide data from 1978 showing lower sea ice? I'd also wager a guess that you have doubts as to the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.
Are you suggesting that all scientists who study signal analysis are colluding to deceive policy makers and that the entire field is actually bogus propaganda? Cuz that's what those other guys are suggesting. If there is a small group of bad actors they will be rooted out (as was seen in this case) and as has been seen in climate science as well: http://science.slashdot.org/st... .
There are examples where papers on global warming tried to game the system but were found out in short order. For an example see this article where Dr. Roy Spencer sneaked a botched paper past the peer-review system by submitting to an off-topic journal. Because the reviewers were not familiar with the topic they were not aware that the methodology described in the paper had already been refuted by previous literature. Within days the journal editor had resigned: http://science.slashdot.org/st...
“The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (Trenberth et al. 2010), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.”
Only people with absolutely zero knowledge about the physical, chemical, and biological science involved would ever think that this would be of any scientfific value.
So... you're saying there is no point in studying the carbon cycle further? The science is settled? Really?
earth's temperature will not spiral out of control
What does "spiral out of control" mean? The literature shows that there will be economic consequences to increased warming and that mitigation will be cheaper than adaptation. You will not find "spiral out of control" in the literature.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. I understand you don't want to talk about it. To sum up our conversation: You are not a birther. You are certain that someone faked Obama's birth certificate (because you read it on the internet), but you are not willing to speculate who did this or why. You have no idea where the president of the USA was born (hint: Hawaii, USA). Also, you believe everyone on the internet who finds you a little nutty is the same person adopting different personalities.
Do you really think google knows who you think faked the birth certificate and why?
Please, enlighten me. I would love to know who you think faked the birth certificate and why!
MTSIA.
How could we possibly know since - as you say - they faked the birth certificate? Why do you suppose they would do that?
That's a very interesting theory. Who do you think manipulated it?
Tell me more Jason. This is fascinating!
Yes. I'll let them know at our next conclave. Don't worry - I will put an end to this.
You forgot to add your theory about Obama's birth certificate among your list of items you are misinformed about! (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5384291&cid=47418481) That is my favourite of your many crazy theories.
You me and the cockroaches can raise a glass of champagne.
Yup. That's BS.
We should consult with the folks on Easter Island.
Yup. That is certainly BS. No group has made such a claim.
Another 16 to 33 percent (10,000 - 20,000 vertebrates) are estimated to be globally threatened or endangered. 320 extinct seems like a small number. Looks like it could go either way from here.
They've been claiming for decades that if we don't do anything the sea will rise by 25m in two decades
You may want to check your sources. Likely you are being lied to, but not by scientists. More likely you've been reading denier blogs. Here is what the IPCC predicted 25 years ago: "For the 'Business-as-Usual' scenario at year 2030 global-mean sea level is 8-29cm higher than today with a best estimate of 18cm." - https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreport...
Since 1990 we've already had about 8cm of sea level rise so we have already already within the projected range and we still have 15 years to go. The rate of rise is accelerating. Even at the current rate we will see about 13 cm rise by 2030. More if acceleration continues. Not far off from the predictions of 1990. - http://climate.nasa.gov/key_in...
You are off by a few orders of magnitude whereas the scientists have already been proven correct.
Nobody is citing climate change and all the animals they cite in TFS were extinct well before humanity is supposed to have had an impact on the planet's climate.
How about TFA?
Since 1500, more than 320 terrestrial vertebrates have become extinct. Populations of the remaining species show a 25 percent average decline in abundance. The situation is similarly dire for invertebrate animal life.
Across vertebrates, 16 to 33 percent of all species are estimated to be globally threatened or endangered. Large animals – described as megafauna and including elephants, rhinoceroses, polar bears and countless other species worldwide – face the highest rate of decline, a trend that matches previous extinction events.
The scientists also detailed a troubling trend in invertebrate defaunation. Human population has doubled in the past 35 years; in the same period, the number of invertebrate animals – such as beetles, butterflies, spiders and worms – has decreased by 45 percent.
As with larger animals, the loss is driven primarily by loss of habitat and global climate disruption, and could have trickle-up effects in our everyday lives.
Identifying the drivers of these extinctions is straightforward, but stemming the loss is a daunting challenge. Animal species continue to decline in, and disappear from, even large, long-protected reserves, due both to direct impacts, such as poaching, and indirect ecological feedbacks, such as habitat fragmentation. Though hunting and poaching might seem obvious candidates for targeted policy and management interventions, there are complex social issues underlying these activities that will require coordinated and cooperative actions by nations (see Brashares et al., p. 376).
While stemming this loss remains a challenging goal, attempts to reverse the extinction trend are increasing. Such “refaunation” efforts involve a variety of approaches, including breeding animals in captivity, with the hope of reintroducing them to the wild, and assisting recolonization of areas where species have become locally extinct (see Seddon et al., p. 406). Active reversal of animal extinctions is proving just as challenging as preventing extinctions in the first place, but a few success stories provide some hope. Many note and mourn the loss of animals but have not recognized that the impacts of this loss go beyond an aesthetic and emotional need to maintain animals as a part of nature. Current research reveals startling rates of animal declines and extinctions and confirms the importance of these species to ecosystems (see Stokstad, p. 396). Further, and more broadly, it suggests that if we are unable to end or reverse the rate of their loss, it will mean more for our own future than a broken heart or an empty forest.
Arctic sea ice is trending near record lows for this time of year, abnormally warm ocean water helped spawn the earliest hurricane ever recorded to make landfall in North Carolina, and a rash of heat waves have plagued cities from India to California to the Middle East.
Yikes, that all sounds alarming right? Except...
Except nothing. You can nitpick by look at this year or that, but look at the trend. Summer minimum extent has dropped by half and is accelerating: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Just the fact that people in the past have tracked down my comments just to mod them down is a pretty good indication that they take me seriously.
Only you could think that getting modded down is a sign that people take you seriously.
the ice figures on that site you linked to are measured from 1979. You might want to ask yourself why.
It is because that's when they launched the satellite. But I'm guessing you believe there is a conspiracy to hide data from 1978 showing lower sea ice? I'd also wager a guess that you have doubts as to the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.
Are you suggesting that all scientists who study signal analysis are colluding to deceive policy makers and that the entire field is actually bogus propaganda? Cuz that's what those other guys are suggesting. If there is a small group of bad actors they will be rooted out (as was seen in this case) and as has been seen in climate science as well: http://science.slashdot.org/st... .
There are examples where papers on global warming tried to game the system but were found out in short order. For an example see this article where Dr. Roy Spencer sneaked a botched paper past the peer-review system by submitting to an off-topic journal. Because the reviewers were not familiar with the topic they were not aware that the methodology described in the paper had already been refuted by previous literature. Within days the journal editor had resigned: http://science.slashdot.org/st...
“The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (Trenberth et al. 2010), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.”
Why prohibit NASA from developing and launching satellites?
Only people with absolutely zero knowledge about the physical, chemical, and biological science involved would ever think that this would be of any scientfific value.
So... you're saying there is no point in studying the carbon cycle further? The science is settled? Really?
earth's temperature will not spiral out of control
What does "spiral out of control" mean? The literature shows that there will be economic consequences to increased warming and that mitigation will be cheaper than adaptation. You will not find "spiral out of control" in the literature.