The insect loss rate is a grossly inaccurate, and covers tiny little chunk of land.
What do you mean by "grossly inaccurate"?
As in plus or minus how much?
The authors seem to have data for 19 years (1993 to 2011, inclusive) for the walking sticks, and each of those was taken with 5 days of sampling over 10 traps for 50 samples to get each of the 19 points.
So there's some evidence of statistical rigour.
How small is the "tiny little chink" of land?
As in what area?
Do you have any reason to suspect that this area isn't representative?
The 98% ground insect loss" between 1976 and 2012 was taken from a research plot of land in the Luquillo Mountains.
This plot of land was DESTROYED in 1990 by Hurricane Hugo, as was the insect and animal populations.
As you can see from figure 5 C, the walking stick population was declining overall since 1991. The decline is correlated with temperature (figure 5 D, same link as 5 C, above). It does not show a flat or recovering population as if the 1990 even had destroyed the population.
The paper attempts to blame this on an increase in temperature and max/min temperatures without any conclusive evidence, without any good data points
No they don't. They show that that is the likely cause using multiple regression, and discuss the alternative hypothesis of the effect of clear-cutting, showing to be not the case in the study area.
... and I imagine that its an attempt tot secure funding by the massive amounts of 'Climate Change' money there is.
Oh, you're one of those conspiracy theory crackpots that think that climate scientists simply do 25 years of education, then get pathetically lowly paid positions as post docs rather than getting a highly paid job in the private sector, so that they can compete for grants that barely fund their research, and they do not get to pocket any of, because that's a sensible route to personal enrichment by deception?
Not a wonder you had so many misconceptions about the paper. Which science-denial website did you pick up your opinions from, if you don't mind be asking?
FYI, the only data points that are year on year contiguous that they have (2012 and 2013) actually show a small growth in the population.
Nope. As you can see from the figure I link, they have data for every year from 1993 to 2011 for walking sticks as well. Decreases occurred on 10 of those sequential years.
Climate Change is real and terrible, but the science behind this crap is utterly disgraceful.
The one time humans could have maybe made dent, with DDT and mosquitos, they checked out thanks to more fake science [reason.com] that claimed DDT harmed birds eggs.
No, that's not fake science.
DDT and Birds
Birds played a major role in creating awareness of pollution problems. Indeed, many people consider the modern environmental movement to have started with the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson's classic Silent Spring, which described the results of the misuse of DDT and other pesticides. In the fable that began that volume, she wrote: "It was a spring without voices. On the mornings that had once throbbed with the dawn chorus of robins, catbirds, doves, jays, wrens, and scores of other bird voices there was now no sound; only silence lay over the fields and woods and marsh." Silent Spring was heavily attacked by the pesticide industry and by narrowly trained entomologists, but its scientific foundation has stood the test of time. Misuse of pesticides is now widely recognized to threaten not only bird communities but human communities as well.
The potentially lethal impact of DDT on birds was first noted in the late 1950s when spraying to control the beetles that carry Dutch elm disease led to a slaughter of robins in Michigan and elsewhere. Researchers discovered that earthworms were accumulating the persistent pesticide and that the robins eating them were being poisoned. Other birds fell victim, too. Gradually, thanks in no small part to Carson's book, gigantic "broadcast spray" programs were brought under control.
But DDT, its breakdown products, and the other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (and nonpesticide chlorinated hydrocarbons such as PCBs) posed a more insidious threat to birds. Because these poisons are persistent they tend to concentrate as they move through the feeding sequences in communities that ecologists call "food chains." For example, in most marine communities, the living weight (biomass) of fish-eating birds is less than that of the fishes they eat. However, because chlorinated hydrocarbons accumulate in fatty tissues, when a ton of contaminated fishes is turned into 200 pounds of seabirds, most of the DDT from the numerous fishes ends up in a relatively few birds. As a result, the birds have a higher level of contamination per pound than the fishes. If Peregrine Falcons feed on the seabirds, the concentration becomes higher still. With several concentrating steps in the food chain below the level of fishes (for instance, tiny aquatic plants crustacea small fishes), very slight environmental contamination can be turned into a heavy pesticide load in birds at the top of the food chain. In one Long Island estuary, concentrations of less than a tenth of a part per million (PPM) of DDT in aquatic plants and plankton resulted in concentrations of 3-25 PPM in gulls, terns, cormorants, mergansers, herons, and ospreys.
"Bioconcentration" of pesticides in birds high on food chains occurs not only because there is usually reduced biomass at each step in those chains, but also because predatory birds tend to live a long time. They may take in only a little DDT per day, but they keep most of what they get, and they live many days.
The insidious aspect of this phenomenon is that large concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons do not usually kill the bird outright. Rather, DDT and its relatives alter the bird's calcium metabolism in a way that results in thin eggshells. Instead of eggs, heavily DDT-infested Brown Pelicans and Bald Eagles tend to find omelets in their nests, since the eggshells are unable to support the weight of the incubating bird.
Shell-thinning resulted in the decimation of the Brown Pelican populations in much of North America and the extermination the Peregrine Falcon in the eastern United States and southeastern Canada. Shell-thinning caused lesser declines in populations of Golden and Bald Eagles and White Pelicans, among others. Similar declines took place in the Br
When they say Four aquatic taxa are imperilled and have already lost a large proportion of species, that means that some of them have already disappeared. They are not saying that they will all disappear. But in Luquillo where there have been large population drops observed, these have been accompanied by parallel decreases in Luquillo’s insectivorous lizards, frogs, and birds.
It's not worth the hyperbole and panic.
The observed collapse of a food web in some areas. It's not hyperbole, and panic is justified, unless you're already in your late 80s or have terminal cancer.
Am I going to seriously make a change to my lifestyle because the never fallable Brad Lister, scientist extraordinair, made an observation? No. The bar of evidence is a study. I need hard data.
The data are decribed in the paper linked above. Knock yourself out.
Lowest price I can find for me to get copies was around $6k.
So there's two possibilities here; either this is fake news and I have a publication so desperate they need to post clickbait, or this isn't fake news and the rich are keeping vital information from the public because, most likely, we're screwed as a species.
There's a third possilbilty. This research was published in a scientific journal that isn't open access.
Actually the article is watered down a bit from the paper.
The paper says that [o]ur work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades., not merely declining.
The analysis, published in the journal Biological Conservation, says intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides. Urbanization and climate change are also significant factors.
No, habitat loss from intensive agriculture and urbanization are both the main driver.
The heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers are second.
Invasive species and diseases from microorganisms are third (not mentioned).
Climate change is fourth.
From the abstract:
The main drivers of species declines appear to be in order of importance:
i) habitat loss and conversion to intensive agriculture and urbanisation;
ii) pollution, mainly that by synthetic pesticides and fertilisers;
iii) biological factors, including pathogens and introduced species; and
iv) climate change.
Possibly he's thinking of a book, rather than a body of peer reviewed scholarly literature The Population Bomb.
If that's the source, I haven't read it. According to the wiki page, it was controversial at the time, so it's not correct to suggest that it was accepted by science. And it's not correct to say it made predictions, but explored a number of possible scenarios. Certainly many of which were way off.
No one is skeptical about the science behind the Earth' s climate changing.
This isn't true. You see "CO isn't a pollutant, it's plant food" across the denialosphere.
People are skeptical of the completely off-the-rails scenarios that science proposes if we don't stop the warming.
If science proposes it then theres a line of reasoning to it from evidence.
Doomsday scenarios have been sold to the public since the beginning of time, and the solutions are always the same: Give the government more money and control over your life.
This is the fearmongering that fossil fuel interests are engaging in. But some things are taxed, and freedoms don't end.
Have you ever read up on the bullshit that "scientists" predicted at the first Earth day back in the 70s? 4 billion people were supposed to die from starvation by 1985.
Have you ever read up on the theory of Relativity? Scientists predicted gravitation and time dilations precise to the limits of measurement. And the predicted gravity waves have now been observed kicking off a new era in astronomy.
Have you ever read up on medical science? Vaccinations? Germ theory and antibiotics? Life expectancy at birth has increased 60% in the USA in the years 1900 to 2000.
Scientists are nothing more than political mouthpieces.
Really. You don't believe in the medical advances or technological advances that have been made.
Do you remember networking before Wi-Fi?
Remember when it was Global cooling?
A misperception. The science was at best equivocal on coming global cooling.
The ozone layer?
Yes. We got rid of CFC emissions, but the ozone hole is still very extensive. It contributes to blindness and skin cancer especially in the southern hemisphere.
Overpopulation?
Yes. The world uses about 30% more resources that it produces every year. They are being depleted, and if it crashes it will get nasty.
Out of curiosity, do you think the National Climate Assessment is almost certainly bollocks, because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, or because you think that the impacts of the current warming are almost certainly wrong for some other reason?
The argument is that he (claims that he) doesn't believe the findings of the National Climate Assessment. "Buffoon" isn't the argument against him, it's an analysis of the argument against him.
Mueller considers a sitting president out of scope. Partly because he can be shut down by the president.
If Trump gets impeached it will be from the fallout from the Democrats getting his tax returns, such as tax evasion or fraud, or from the fallout from the Stormy Daniels case, such as setting up a company for an illegal purpose, or from employing family members, such as Ivanka, or from self-enrichment, such as spending money staying at Mar-a-lago.
The Russia investigation may imprison his son-in-law, but that's all.
So AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming. It means the (average) warming of the (whole) globe due to human activity. The Mechanism is the expected increase in greenhouse gasses, and therefore the increase in the greenhouse effect.
So if greenhouse gasses were decreasing, that would falsify AGW.
But since 2014, that is 16mm, or about 0.6 inches. It is ridiculous to claim that this is the cause of coastal flooding.
They didn't claim that the global mean sea level rise since 2014 is responsible for the coastal flooding.
The claim is: Since 2014, more detailed economic research has estimated that climate change could cause hundreds of billions of dollars in annual damage, as deadly heat waves, coastal flooding, and an increase in extreme weather take their toll.
However, you might be surprised about the impact of a millimetre. In 2016, Sydney experienced a storm that occurred at near the highest tide of the year. The erosion was 50 metres of beach in many areas, despite the storm only falling on a tide that was millimetres more than a normal spring tide: The cost of those millimetres or less was $300m.
This sort of silly alarmism is causing "crisis fatigue" and just making people more and more skeptical about global warming and science in general.
I think you have to misread the article, and misunderstand the science to come to this conclusion. This sort of silly denialism is causing frustration with and just supports those with a financial interest in encouraging distrust in global warming science.
It has nothing to do with "net neutrality", it has to do with the industries' definition of "unlimited".
It has something to do with "net neutrality". The repealed net neutrality laws did ban throttling. (Although they had an exception for "reasonable network management"... which this throttling wasn't, it throttled at all times after 25GB, no matter what the load on the network was)
6. Only a few weeks ago, County Fire deployed OES Incident Support Unit 5262
("OES 5262"), to the Mendocino Complex Fire, now the largest fire in state history. OES 5262
ADD2
USCA Case #18-1051 Document #1746555 Filed: 08/20/2018 Page 4 of 58
is deployed to large incidents as a command and control resource. Its primary function is to
track, organize, and prioritize routing of resowces from around the state and country to the sites
where they are most needed. OES 5262 relies heavily on the use of specialized software and
Google Sheets to do near-real-time resource tracking through the use of cloud computing over
the Internet.
7. Resources tracked across such a large event include personnel and equipment
supplied from local governments across California; the State of California; federal agencies
including the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service;
and other countries. As of Monday, August 13, 2018, the response effort for the wildfires
burning across California included 13,000 firefighters, multiple aircraft, dozens or hundreds of
hulldozers, and hundreds of fire engines. The wildfires have resulted in over 726,000 acres
burned and roughly 2,000 structures destroyed. With several months left in what is a "normal"
fire season, we fully expect these numbers to rise.
8. OES 5262 also coordinates all local government resources deployed to the
Mendocino Complex Fire. That is, the unit facilitates resource check-in and routing for local
government resources. In doing so, the unit typically exchanges 5-10 gigabytes of data per day
via the Internet using a mobile router and wireless connection. Near-real-time information
exchange is vital to proper function. In large and complex fires, resource allocation requires
immediate information. Dated or stale information regarding the availability or need for
resources can slow response times and render them far less effective. Resources could be
deployed to the wrong fire, the wrong part of a fire, or fail to be deployed at all. Even small
delays in response translate into devastating effects, including loss of property, and, in some
cases, loss of life.
Also they have frequency set aside for first responders and forest fire crews. Did they suddenly become uneducated on how a radio, a compass and a map works.
Dropping back to radios, compasses and maps is obviously sub-optimal, but if you're expecting the command and control center to be able to perform command and control, you might not have that option ready.
The problem is that they were throttled at a critical time, and the outcome was poorer coordination of the response until Verison was paid off to lift the throttle.
The Journal of Glaciology published a comment on the NASA paper that you link to.
It's worth noting, because the result is an outlier.
The comment begins:
We have significant concerns with a study recently published in the Journal of Glaciology by Zwally and others (2015), hereafter ‘Zwally 2015’. The paper concludes that the Antarctic ice-sheet mass is increasing, a result that is inconsistent with a large body of previously published work.
Republican voting southern USA living religious people are the backbone of the inaction on climate change movement.
Christian climate scientists like Dr Hayhoe are considered rare and an asset for climate science communication.
Religious people tend to relax in the knowledge that in heaven everything will be fine, and after Kingdom Come, everything will be made fine on earth. They're fucking dangerous.
The reason that people with no faith tend to care about climate science and the environment in general, is because they're more likely to be scientifically minded, and more likely to think about responsibility and ethics.
Motivating people to action involves getting it through their dumb-arse religious heads that despite what they're told by people paid by the fossil fuel industry, that there's a problem, and there are many things that are cheaper in the long term that adaptation to the impacts.
Ensuring that we do no disenfranchise the poor, globally speaking is trivial. The poor, it turns out, will bear the brunt of the impacts. So any action reduces the injustice that is inflicted on them.
On a national level, there's solutions offered that aren't regressive. Dr James Hansen has been supporting the fee and dividend as a solution. I don't think Jim is a theist.
Nuclear was a much more viable solution when we had decades to act.
Because it takes three or four decades to get a nuclear power plant up and running, wind, hydro and solar must make up the bulk of the new power in order to be online before the 2C goal is lost.
Rising sea levels will not kill millions of people. It may displace Millions of people but not kill them.
People displaced off no-longer viable agricultural land would have greatly increased mortality from starvation at least.
But the reality of the displacement is that it would be with storm surge or flood, that itself would be a disaster with many deaths in parts of the world.
I think it's fair to say that rising seas will kill them.
Why people always behave as though the left is composed of poor people and lead by poor people? That there are no billionaire liberals pushing the agenda as much as there are billionaires that fund the opposite view (if not more)? Why pretend that there is no side that has a vested interest in green energy?
Because science is neither left nor right. In fact there is a consensus amongst economists that we should be reducing greenhouse emissions.
However, there is about $33 billion dollars at stake for the fossil fuel industry, and their PR workshops have shown that if you tie misinformation to a political position, then people become very resistant to evidence.
So that's what they've tried to do.
You don't need to read the political or PR blogs to get a handle on the science. There's scientific literature and science communicators out there.
The unadjusted data will be kept under lock and key while everyone is instructed to accept based on faith that the oceans are warming rapidly.
Perhaps I can point you to some of the raw data that you're looking for. Which is it that you think is kept under lock and key?
The AGW cult is even more profitable than the LDS cult, and this will no doubt be used to justify even more wealth redistribution.
The fossil fuel industry has about a $33 billion dollar stake in this.
And you think that there's someone in the fledgling solar panel industry that is paying all the scientific organisations in the world to sell them a bit faster?
You do realize how blatantly implausible that is, don't you?
The money in the PR game is all on the anti-scientific side.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether global warming is true or not ...
Whether gravity is true or not, global warming's been measured.
Yep, warming.
The insect loss rate is a grossly inaccurate, and covers tiny little chunk of land.
What do you mean by "grossly inaccurate"?
As in plus or minus how much?
The authors seem to have data for 19 years (1993 to 2011, inclusive) for the walking sticks, and each of those was taken with 5 days of sampling over 10 traps for 50 samples to get each of the 19 points.
So there's some evidence of statistical rigour. How small is the "tiny little chink" of land?
As in what area?
Do you have any reason to suspect that this area isn't representative?
The 98% ground insect loss" between 1976 and 2012 was taken from a research plot of land in the Luquillo Mountains.
This plot of land was DESTROYED in 1990 by Hurricane Hugo, as was the insect and animal populations.
As you can see from figure 5 C, the walking stick population was declining overall since 1991. The decline is correlated with temperature (figure 5 D, same link as 5 C, above). It does not show a flat or recovering population as if the 1990 even had destroyed the population.
The paper attempts to blame this on an increase in temperature and max/min temperatures without any conclusive evidence, without any good data points
No they don't. They show that that is the likely cause using multiple regression, and discuss the alternative hypothesis of the effect of clear-cutting, showing to be not the case in the study area.
Oh, you're one of those conspiracy theory crackpots that think that climate scientists simply do 25 years of education, then get pathetically lowly paid positions as post docs rather than getting a highly paid job in the private sector, so that they can compete for grants that barely fund their research, and they do not get to pocket any of, because that's a sensible route to personal enrichment by deception?
Not a wonder you had so many misconceptions about the paper. Which science-denial website did you pick up your opinions from, if you don't mind be asking?
FYI, the only data points that are year on year contiguous that they have (2012 and 2013) actually show a small growth in the population.
Nope. As you can see from the figure I link, they have data for every year from 1993 to 2011 for walking sticks as well. Decreases occurred on 10 of those sequential years.
Climate Change is real and terrible, but the science behind this crap is utterly disgraceful.
Irony (adj): a bit like an iron.
The one time humans could have maybe made dent, with DDT and mosquitos, they checked out thanks to more fake science [reason.com] that claimed DDT harmed birds eggs.
No, that's not fake science.
DDT and Birds
Birds played a major role in creating awareness of pollution problems. Indeed, many people consider the modern environmental movement to have started with the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson's classic Silent Spring, which described the results of the misuse of DDT and other pesticides. In the fable that began that volume, she wrote: "It was a spring without voices. On the mornings that had once throbbed with the dawn chorus of robins, catbirds, doves, jays, wrens, and scores of other bird voices there was now no sound; only silence lay over the fields and woods and marsh." Silent Spring was heavily attacked by the pesticide industry and by narrowly trained entomologists, but its scientific foundation has stood the test of time. Misuse of pesticides is now widely recognized to threaten not only bird communities but human communities as well.
The potentially lethal impact of DDT on birds was first noted in the late 1950s when spraying to control the beetles that carry Dutch elm disease led to a slaughter of robins in Michigan and elsewhere. Researchers discovered that earthworms were accumulating the persistent pesticide and that the robins eating them were being poisoned. Other birds fell victim, too. Gradually, thanks in no small part to Carson's book, gigantic "broadcast spray" programs were brought under control.
But DDT, its breakdown products, and the other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (and nonpesticide chlorinated hydrocarbons such as PCBs) posed a more insidious threat to birds. Because these poisons are persistent they tend to concentrate as they move through the feeding sequences in communities that ecologists call "food chains." For example, in most marine communities, the living weight (biomass) of fish-eating birds is less than that of the fishes they eat. However, because chlorinated hydrocarbons accumulate in fatty tissues, when a ton of contaminated fishes is turned into 200 pounds of seabirds, most of the DDT from the numerous fishes ends up in a relatively few birds. As a result, the birds have a higher level of contamination per pound than the fishes. If Peregrine Falcons feed on the seabirds, the concentration becomes higher still. With several concentrating steps in the food chain below the level of fishes (for instance, tiny aquatic plants crustacea small fishes), very slight environmental contamination can be turned into a heavy pesticide load in birds at the top of the food chain. In one Long Island estuary, concentrations of less than a tenth of a part per million (PPM) of DDT in aquatic plants and plankton resulted in concentrations of 3-25 PPM in gulls, terns, cormorants, mergansers, herons, and ospreys.
"Bioconcentration" of pesticides in birds high on food chains occurs not only because there is usually reduced biomass at each step in those chains, but also because predatory birds tend to live a long time. They may take in only a little DDT per day, but they keep most of what they get, and they live many days.
The insidious aspect of this phenomenon is that large concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons do not usually kill the bird outright. Rather, DDT and its relatives alter the bird's calcium metabolism in a way that results in thin eggshells. Instead of eggs, heavily DDT-infested Brown Pelicans and Bald Eagles tend to find omelets in their nests, since the eggshells are unable to support the weight of the incubating bird.
Shell-thinning resulted in the decimation of the Brown Pelican populations in much of North America and the extermination the Peregrine Falcon in the eastern United States and southeastern Canada. Shell-thinning caused lesser declines in populations of Golden and Bald Eagles and White Pelicans, among others. Similar declines took place in the Br
Insects aren't going to disappear.
When they say Four aquatic taxa are imperilled and have already lost a large proportion of species, that means that some of them have already disappeared. They are not saying that they will all disappear. But in Luquillo where there have been large population drops observed, these have been accompanied by parallel decreases in Luquillo’s insectivorous lizards, frogs, and birds.
It's not worth the hyperbole and panic.
The observed collapse of a food web in some areas. It's not hyperbole, and panic is justified, unless you're already in your late 80s or have terminal cancer.
Lets talk for a minute, objectively, about alarmist fake-news.
Okay.
The above is anecdotal evidence; one person, one observation.
Not it's not. It's a scholarly paper with many observations of insect biomass and local tempertature..
Am I going to seriously make a change to my lifestyle because the never fallable Brad Lister, scientist extraordinair, made an observation? No. The bar of evidence is a study. I need hard data.
The data are decribed in the paper linked above. Knock yourself out.
Lowest price I can find for me to get copies was around $6k.
So there's two possibilities here; either this is fake news and I have a publication so desperate they need to post clickbait, or this isn't fake news and the rich are keeping vital information from the public because, most likely, we're screwed as a species.
There's a third possilbilty. This research was published in a scientific journal that isn't open access.
Actually the article is watered down a bit from the paper.
The paper says that [o]ur work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades., not merely declining.
The analysis, published in the journal Biological Conservation, says intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides. Urbanization and climate change are also significant factors.
No, habitat loss from intensive agriculture and urbanization are both the main driver.
The heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers are second.
Invasive species and diseases from microorganisms are third (not mentioned).
Climate change is fourth.
From the abstract:
The main drivers of species declines appear to be in order of importance:
i) habitat loss and conversion to intensive agriculture and urbanisation;
ii) pollution, mainly that by synthetic pesticides and fertilisers;
iii) biological factors, including pathogens and introduced species; and
iv) climate change.
Possibly he's thinking of a book, rather than a body of peer reviewed scholarly literature The Population Bomb.
If that's the source, I haven't read it. According to the wiki page, it was controversial at the time, so it's not correct to suggest that it was accepted by science. And it's not correct to say it made predictions, but explored a number of possible scenarios. Certainly many of which were way off.
What happens when one of these pharmacy students mentions the Tiananmen square massacre on their social media?
No one is skeptical about the science behind the Earth' s climate changing.
This isn't true. You see "CO isn't a pollutant, it's plant food" across the denialosphere.
People are skeptical of the completely off-the-rails scenarios that science proposes if we don't stop the warming.
If science proposes it then theres a line of reasoning to it from evidence.
Doomsday scenarios have been sold to the public since the beginning of time, and the solutions are always the same: Give the government more money and control over your life.
This is the fearmongering that fossil fuel interests are engaging in. But some things are taxed, and freedoms don't end.
Have you ever read up on the bullshit that "scientists" predicted at the first Earth day back in the 70s? 4 billion people were supposed to die from starvation by 1985.
Have you ever read up on the theory of Relativity? Scientists predicted gravitation and time dilations precise to the limits of measurement. And the predicted gravity waves have now been observed kicking off a new era in astronomy. Have you ever read up on medical science? Vaccinations? Germ theory and antibiotics? Life expectancy at birth has increased 60% in the USA in the years 1900 to 2000.
Scientists are nothing more than political mouthpieces.
Really. You don't believe in the medical advances or technological advances that have been made.
Do you remember networking before Wi-Fi?
Remember when it was Global cooling?
A misperception. The science was at best equivocal on coming global cooling.
The ozone layer?
Yes. We got rid of CFC emissions, but the ozone hole is still very extensive. It contributes to blindness and skin cancer especially in the southern hemisphere.
Overpopulation?
Yes. The world uses about 30% more resources that it produces every year. They are being depleted, and if it crashes it will get nasty.
Global warming? Anthropogenic global warming?
Yes. It's warming.
They've literally been wrong about the consequences of this shit every time.
They really haven't.
Stfu and face the facts that humanity doesn't understand shit about this world.
This shouldn't be a source of comfort. It means that there will be impacts of climate change that no one has yet realised.
Out of curiosity, do you think the National Climate Assessment is almost certainly bollocks, because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, or because you think that the impacts of the current warming are almost certainly wrong for some other reason?
The argument is that he (claims that he) doesn't believe the findings of the National Climate Assessment. "Buffoon" isn't the argument against him, it's an analysis of the argument against him.
Mueller considers a sitting president out of scope. Partly because he can be shut down by the president.
If Trump gets impeached it will be from the fallout from the Democrats getting his tax returns, such as tax evasion or fraud, or from the fallout from the Stormy Daniels case, such as setting up a company for an illegal purpose, or from employing family members, such as Ivanka, or from self-enrichment, such as spending money staying at Mar-a-lago.
The Russia investigation may imprison his son-in-law, but that's all.
So AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming. It means the (average) warming of the (whole) globe due to human activity. The Mechanism is the expected increase in greenhouse gasses, and therefore the increase in the greenhouse effect.
So if greenhouse gasses were decreasing, that would falsify AGW.
They have been measured to be increasing.
If the greenhouse effect were decreasing, that would falsify AGW.
It has been measured to be increasing.
If the temperature of the planet were decreasing, that would falsify AGW.
br
It has been measured to be increasing
WTF are you smoking?
But since 2014, that is 16mm, or about 0.6 inches. It is ridiculous to claim that this is the cause of coastal flooding.
They didn't claim that the global mean sea level rise since 2014 is responsible for the coastal flooding.
The claim is: Since 2014, more detailed economic research has estimated that climate change could cause hundreds of billions of dollars in annual damage, as deadly heat waves, coastal flooding, and an increase in extreme weather take their toll.
However, you might be surprised about the impact of a millimetre. In 2016, Sydney experienced a storm that occurred at near the highest tide of the year. The erosion was 50 metres of beach in many areas, despite the storm only falling on a tide that was millimetres more than a normal spring tide: The cost of those millimetres or less was $300m.
This sort of silly alarmism is causing "crisis fatigue" and just making people more and more skeptical about global warming and science in general.
I think you have to misread the article, and misunderstand the science to come to this conclusion. This sort of silly denialism is causing frustration with and just supports those with a financial interest in encouraging distrust in global warming science.
It has nothing to do with "net neutrality", it has to do with the industries' definition of "unlimited".
It has something to do with "net neutrality". The repealed net neutrality laws did ban throttling. (Although they had an exception for "reasonable network management" ... which this throttling wasn't, it throttled at all times after 25GB, no matter what the load on the network was)
Which calls into question why government officials and first responders are relying on it during emergencies.
It's not telephone services. It's a modern real time logistics and resource managements system.
From the DECLARATION OF FIRE CHIEF ANTHONY BOWDEN to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
6. Only a few weeks ago, County Fire deployed OES Incident Support Unit 5262 ("OES 5262"), to the Mendocino Complex Fire, now the largest fire in state history. OES 5262 ADD2 USCA Case #18-1051 Document #1746555 Filed: 08/20/2018 Page 4 of 58 is deployed to large incidents as a command and control resource. Its primary function is to track, organize, and prioritize routing of resowces from around the state and country to the sites where they are most needed. OES 5262 relies heavily on the use of specialized software and Google Sheets to do near-real-time resource tracking through the use of cloud computing over the Internet.
7. Resources tracked across such a large event include personnel and equipment supplied from local governments across California; the State of California; federal agencies including the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service; and other countries. As of Monday, August 13, 2018, the response effort for the wildfires burning across California included 13,000 firefighters, multiple aircraft, dozens or hundreds of hulldozers, and hundreds of fire engines. The wildfires have resulted in over 726,000 acres burned and roughly 2,000 structures destroyed. With several months left in what is a "normal" fire season, we fully expect these numbers to rise.
8. OES 5262 also coordinates all local government resources deployed to the Mendocino Complex Fire. That is, the unit facilitates resource check-in and routing for local government resources. In doing so, the unit typically exchanges 5-10 gigabytes of data per day via the Internet using a mobile router and wireless connection. Near-real-time information exchange is vital to proper function. In large and complex fires, resource allocation requires immediate information. Dated or stale information regarding the availability or need for resources can slow response times and render them far less effective. Resources could be deployed to the wrong fire, the wrong part of a fire, or fail to be deployed at all. Even small delays in response translate into devastating effects, including loss of property, and, in some cases, loss of life.
Also they have frequency set aside for first responders and forest fire crews. Did they suddenly become uneducated on how a radio, a compass and a map works.
Dropping back to radios, compasses and maps is obviously sub-optimal, but if you're expecting the command and control center to be able to perform command and control, you might not have that option ready.
The problem is that they were throttled at a critical time, and the outcome was poorer coordination of the response until Verison was paid off to lift the throttle.
It's worth noting, because the result is an outlier.
The comment begins:
We have significant concerns with a study recently published in the Journal of Glaciology by Zwally and others (2015), hereafter ‘Zwally 2015’. The paper concludes that the Antarctic ice-sheet mass is increasing, a result that is inconsistent with a large body of previously published work.
Are you serious?
Republican voting southern USA living religious people are the backbone of the inaction on climate change movement.
Christian climate scientists like Dr Hayhoe are considered rare and an asset for climate science communication.
Religious people tend to relax in the knowledge that in heaven everything will be fine, and after Kingdom Come, everything will be made fine on earth. They're fucking dangerous.
The reason that people with no faith tend to care about climate science and the environment in general, is because they're more likely to be scientifically minded, and more likely to think about responsibility and ethics.
Motivating people to action involves getting it through their dumb-arse religious heads that despite what they're told by people paid by the fossil fuel industry, that there's a problem, and there are many things that are cheaper in the long term that adaptation to the impacts.
Ensuring that we do no disenfranchise the poor, globally speaking is trivial. The poor, it turns out, will bear the brunt of the impacts. So any action reduces the injustice that is inflicted on them.
On a national level, there's solutions offered that aren't regressive. Dr James Hansen has been supporting the fee and dividend as a solution. I don't think Jim is a theist.
Maybe there's some somewhere out in space?
2 mm / year is the component from sinking land. 3 mm / year is the global average. Which is a total of 5 mm / year
But any of them is faster than you can run if you're carrying a North Beach apartment.
Nuclear was a much more viable solution when we had decades to act.
Because it takes three or four decades to get a nuclear power plant up and running, wind, hydro and solar must make up the bulk of the new power in order to be online before the 2C goal is lost.
Rising sea levels will not kill millions of people. It may displace Millions of people but not kill them.
People displaced off no-longer viable agricultural land would have greatly increased mortality from starvation at least.
But the reality of the displacement is that it would be with storm surge or flood, that itself would be a disaster with many deaths in parts of the world.
I think it's fair to say that rising seas will kill them.
Because science is neither left nor right. In fact there is a consensus amongst economists that we should be reducing greenhouse emissions.
However, there is about $33 billion dollars at stake for the fossil fuel industry, and their PR workshops have shown that if you tie misinformation to a political position, then people become very resistant to evidence.
So that's what they've tried to do.
You don't need to read the political or PR blogs to get a handle on the science. There's scientific literature and science communicators out there.
Perhaps I can point you to some of the raw data that you're looking for. Which is it that you think is kept under lock and key?
The fossil fuel industry has about a $33 billion dollar stake in this.
And you think that there's someone in the fledgling solar panel industry that is paying all the scientific organisations in the world to sell them a bit faster?
You do realize how blatantly implausible that is, don't you?
The money in the PR game is all on the anti-scientific side.