Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

Global Warming On Pace For 4 Degrees: World Bank Worried 439

Posted by samzenpus
from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.
iONiUM writes "From the article: 'Over the years at the U.N. climate talks, the goal has been to keep future global warming below 2C. But as those talks have faltered, emissions have kept rising, and that 2C goal is now looking increasingly out of reach. Lately, the conversation has shifted toward how to deal with 3C of warming. Or 4C. Or potentially more." Overall it seems that poorer, less developed nations will be largely impacted negatively, while some countries (like Canada and Russia) will actually experience benefits. Where does that leave the rest of the 1st world countries?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Global Warming On Pace For 4 Degrees: World Bank Worried

Comments Filter:
  • by i kan reed (749298) on Monday November 19, 2012 @04:55PM (#42031343) Homepage Journal

    No individual nation benefits from moving to fix this alone. International diplomacy operates at the kindergarten argument level by virtue of no leader wanting to appear as though they're screwing over their populace for people of another nation.

    Imagine getting a room full of five year olds with toys to sit quietly for an hour, even if the promise is candy for everyone. That's what climate change negotiations are like.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19, 2012 @04:57PM (#42031371)

    1 degree over the next 100 years, 2 degrees over the next fifty years, 4 degrees over the next 25 years. Next year some "scientists" will probably be calling for a 10 degree rise within the next 10 years. Every year, I hear something that sounds less-and-less like hard science coming out of these "scientists" and more-and-more of something that sounds more akin to millennialist religious fanatics proclaiming the end of days.

    Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.

  • Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by i kan reed (749298) on Monday November 19, 2012 @04:59PM (#42031413) Homepage Journal

    25 years from now, barring amazing new desalinization technologies, Canada's water rights will be one of the biggest international policy debates in the United States. I really really want to read this post and laugh at what an idiot I was in 2037, but I think water will be a big problem soon. Imagine 2012's Midwestern drought 5 years in a row to get where I'm coming from.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:01PM (#42031435)

    My goodness! We need to implement carbon credits! That will save the planet so the World Bank can sleep better at night. Hooray for the World Bank and all their concern for all of us! They are like a warm and snuggly blanket, defenders of high temperature everywhere.

  • Re:Cause? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by petteyg359 (1847514) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:01PM (#42031441)

    Who gives a crap about whether it is "natural" anymore? The overall effect is quite undesirable, so regardless of whether we're causing it, we damn well ought to be doing something to counteract it, if we care to survive.

  • by cultiv8 (1660093) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:06PM (#42031523) Homepage
    one of the benefits of living in a red state.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:07PM (#42031541)
    At the same time the US speaks of becoming one of the biggest oil producer by exploiting oil shale. Tragedy of the common indeed.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:09PM (#42031571)

    Wow, bankers are the authority on science now. I suppose that's an upgrade from politicians like Al Gore?

    What a joke the scaremonger / banksters are.

  • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:17PM (#42031691) Journal

    Why do you need to refer to Gore or bankers, when the scientists are telling you what is happening? And no, the Heartland Institute does not do science.

  • Re:Cause? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by thesupraman (179040) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:18PM (#42031701)

    And if it is natural, what makes you think we can do anything to counteract it?

    Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures), we are not
    going to make a big impact on the natural cycles even if we reduce to zero..

    So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything, so it would seem our science on the matter
    is incorrect, our 'measures' to combat it seem primarily designed to fill government and large business coffers and
    everyone has completely lost focus on such 'small' issues as chemical pollution (poisons..) and spiraling inefficiency
    in our base lifestyles (you think massive systemic waste DOESNT effect the environment? really?

    And what makes you think it would be much of a challenge to survive? I am amazed by how people seem to confuse
    inconvenience with survival these days.

    If you really want to massively cut back carbon emissions, then start rallying against GreenPeace and the other
    kneejerk 'enviromentalists' blocking of latest generation nuclear power. Rolling out that to replace both old
    dangerous design reactors and combustion based generation is by FAR the biggest step there could be.

  • Re:Quick... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rs79 (71822) <hostmaster@open-rsc.org> on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:22PM (#42031749) Homepage

    Sure, cause I always trust Investment Wankers for unparalleled, unbiased insight into science.

    Hows the carbon market these days?

  • Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:24PM (#42031777) Journal

    Why should I care about bankers. I pay attention to what scientists say.

    Look, even the Koch's are giving up the ghost. Time to face reality. The universe doesn't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and doesn't donate money to the Heartland Institute, and it most certainly doesn't give one sweet fuck about you, I, our economic ideologies or political ideologies.

  • Re:Quick... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:29PM (#42031831)

    Look into reverse osmosis. Water shortages aren't making headlines like global warming because we have ways to get fresh water out of the ocean if we get that desperate.

    Not a lot of ocean here in Oklahoma.

  • by Punto (100573) <puntob.gmail@com> on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:30PM (#42031835) Homepage

    yeah let's worry about how this will affect the 1st world countries, those are the real victims here

  • Re:Quick... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Grayhand (2610049) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:37PM (#42031925)

    25 years from now, barring amazing new desalinization technologies, Canada's water rights will be one of the biggest international policy debates in the United States. I really really want to read this post and laugh at what an idiot I was in 2037, but I think water will be a big problem soon. Imagine 2012's Midwestern drought 5 years in a row to get where I'm coming from.

    Twelve years ago I told a businessman I was dealing with oil wasn't the concern in the future, it would be water rights that caused wars. You'd be surprised at some of the corporations buying up water rights. Just imagine if fracking destroys a lot of the in ground supply and drought decreases the surface water how much those rights will be worth?

  • Re:Cause? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Grayhand (2610049) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:45PM (#42032027)

    If you want to counteract it, you kind of need to understand the root cause. However, given that there's been 90% consensus among the scientific community for more than a decade, the root cause is not really in question. At this point, posing the question of what causes climate change is code for saying, "addressing the known cause would have adverse impact on me, so I deny the known cause."

    It's a myth that it will adversely affect the economy. Fixing the mess will create as many or more jobs as it takes away. The issue is the ones causing the problem have the money and resources to fight change so nothing gets done. They keep denying and adding to the problem and just pay off Congressmen to not do anything. Once they've bled out what money they can the sad joke is the ones causing the warming will switch to technologies to correct the problem so they make money off the fix. These are businessmen and they know from the stock market you want to make money as you ride the stock up then make money as you ride it down. We suffer while they get richer.

  • Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EvolutionInAction (2623513) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:45PM (#42032041)
    Keep in mind that broad strokes are normally easier than specifics. "It'll rain tomorrow" is a lot harder than "The average temperature for the month of October is X degrees C."
    Science is almost never 100% correct, but it is always approaching. And lets be honest, it's the only way to make predictions of the future that are right more often than not.
  • Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pclminion (145572) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:45PM (#42032043)

    Because scientists are ALWAYS correct. Hell we have hard enough time predicting the weather beyond 5 days in the future. What leads me to trust these predictions 50 years from now?

    As an analogy, think of a snow globe. Shake it up so all the pieces are swirling around. Can you predict the exact path that will be taken by each of those pieces? Not easily. Can you predict with confidence that after, say, five minutes, they will all be sitting on the bottom of the snow globe? Yes. Your inability to predict phenomenon A at timescale X has nothing to do with your ability to predict phenomenon B at timescale Y. Every time I here such an argument I can't help but think it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

  • Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:45PM (#42032045) Journal

    Weather is not climate. You're not keeping it real, you're posting a fallacious argument (fallacy of equivalence by the looks of it) and then ending them with "Just keepin' it real."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:46PM (#42032057)

    Every year, I hear something that sounds less-and-less like hard science coming out of these "scientists" and more-and-more of something that sounds more akin to millennialist religious fanatics proclaiming the end of days.

    That's how science works.

    Once consensus is reached, nobody is allowed to question it on pain of being branded a heretic.

  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:52PM (#42032133)

    1 degree over the next 100 years, 2 degrees over the next fifty years, 4 degrees over the next 25 years. Next year some "scientists" will probably be calling for a 10 degree rise within the next 10 years. Every year, I hear something that sounds less-and-less like hard science coming out of these "scientists" and more-and-more of something that sounds more akin to millennialist religious fanatics proclaiming the end of days.

    Hard to see why it's "less-and-less like hard science", since it's based on evidence.

    The only invariant in the science of global warming is that it always turns out worse than we expected faster than we expected. If we suddenly find ourselves with an ice-free arctic, we have to take that into account in our projections.

    Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.

    Karma is cheap. You should speak your mind even if it isn't popular.

  • Re:Oh nooo (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kenaaker (774785) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:56PM (#42032195)
    It's like playing whack-a-goth. No sooner does somebody respond to this "no warming since 1998" myth with detailed information about why it's a myth, than some other mouth-breathing ignoramus presents it as the revealed truth.

    Damn it, read before writing will you?

  • by jenningsthecat (1525947) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:59PM (#42032227)

    The article at the second link in TFA talks about the "upside" of "global warming" for Canada, Russia, and the Scandinavian countries - longer growing season, opening up the Northwest Passage, etc.

    What these fucktards are failing to take into account is the colossal change in weather patterns that we'll almost certainly experience. No, I don't want warmer winters and cheaper produce here in Canada if the price is vastly increased destruction of property and life as a result of monster-sized hail storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, and increased insect populations. The latter of these, BTW, will likely offset any agricultural gains that might result from a longer growing season - all those bugs will just love eating food crops and trees. Never mind the horrendous effects that climate change is already having in warmer climates...

    The so called "global warming experts" quoted would probably claim suntans as an upside to nuclear bombs. Do we no longer teach science and critical thinking in our schools?

  • Re:Quick... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Burning1 (204959) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:02PM (#42032261) Homepage

    Another way to look at it: body-weight fluctuates day to day, based on water intake, restroom usage, time of day, etc. It's somewhat difficult to predict to the accuracy of a pound what your weight will be on any given day. It is however easy to predict that your weight will tend to increase on a 4000 calorie all-nacho diet.

  • Re:Cause? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rs79 (71822) <hostmaster@open-rsc.org> on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:04PM (#42032273) Homepage

    Because if you spit in the ocean the sea will rise. (just not by much).

  • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:08PM (#42032335)

    Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.

    I know what you mean. I can't bring up questions about spontaneous generation, Homunculus theory, or creationism without people modding me troll! It's almost as if raising arguments against the scientific consensus, arguments which have specifically been brought up for decades, arguments which no one makes unless they have an agenda which involves denying reality, is looked down on in rational debate!

    I mean, Darwinists used to say that evolution was gradual, NOW they say it's punctuated equalibrium, sometimes going thousands of years without change! It's nuts! Clearly god created all life in 6 days!

  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:18PM (#42032437)

    Temperatures have remained steady for 16 years now

    Please look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years [wikipedia.org]
    and tell us how many of the last 16 years are not included in the 16 hottest years on record.

    As the saying goes, you're entitled to your won opinions, but not to your own facts.

    in spite of computer models released by the IPCC which show that by now temperatures should be much higher.

    And yet for some reason all the world's ice is melting faster than the IPCC ever had the balls to predict.

  • Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dixie_Flatline (5077) <vincent DOT jan DOT goh AT gmail DOT com> on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:39PM (#42032737) Homepage

    Sigh.

    Okay, let's take a real world example, then: will the average temperature this winter be colder than the average temperature in the summer in the Northern Hemisphere?

    Yes. Yes it will.

    That is a statement of climate, not of weather. It's also a statement that we can make with fairly strong confidence, despite the many factors involved in modelling the climate. If you want to get more specific, like how much colder one is than the other, you have to improve the models and simulations.

    Climate science isn't voodoo. There's data to draw on, models that can be devised, and hypotheses that can be verified. Sometimes the models fail, or the hypotheses are shown to be incorrect, just like in any other field of science.

    So if a climate scientist predicts that the temperature will climb over the next 50 years given current trends and lack of action, and the result of this will be certain climactic effects--like more drought or more powerful and less predictable storms (like Sandy)--they're not just pulling this stuff out of thin air.

    There is literally no long-term downside to improving our approach to the environment. All the down-sides are short term. Even the economic benefits in the long run (or at least, the lack of economic penalties) are enormous.

  • Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by microbox (704317) on Monday November 19, 2012 @07:43PM (#42033629)

    You pay attention to what *some* scientists say. Follow the money.

    You say that brazenly like someone who never followed the money themselves, and knows nothing about the academic process. Mainstream science has been unequivocal since the late 70s. The well-oiled and well-funded denial machine has been operating in its modern form since the 50s.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

Working...