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This discussion has been archived.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 Murdoch5 (1563847) on Monday November 19, 2012 @04:53PM (#42031313)
    Nice I get to turn my thermostat down.
    • by cultiv8 (1660093) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:06PM (#42031523) Homepage
      one of the benefits of living in a red state.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Gilmoure (18428)

      Exactly! What do a bunch of scientists and college people know? There's plenty of sites on teh internets that have proved that temps are actually falling, that the continents aren't spreading, the moon does have a dark side and twinkies are actually Lembas, with better marketing.

  • Quick... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Synerg1y (2169962) on Monday November 19, 2012 @04:53PM (#42031317)
    Let's invade Canada before it becomes a super power in the new "warmer" world.
    • 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.

      • Re:Quick... (Score:5, Informative)

        by alen (225700) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:02PM (#42031461)

        the midwest had a drought for years in the 80's. I remember farm aid.

        its a wet/dry cycle that lasts a few decades and alternates

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by MightyMartian (840721)

          Unless something comes along and fucks with that cycle. Like, say, global climate change.

          People used to joke about Canada becoming the 51st state. Maybe, in fifty years, they'll joke about the United States becoming the 11th province.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by rs79 (71822)

            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:4, Funny)

            by MachDelta (704883) on Monday November 19, 2012 @06:11PM (#42032371)

            Who says we'd let you be a province? I think "The Territory of the Former United States of America" sounds pretty good. ;)

        • Re:Quick... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by i kan reed (749298) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:20PM (#42031725) Homepage Journal

          So, your post prompted me to research the history of Midwestern droughts in the United States, and I have to admit, there's a lot of history there. Suffice it to say, the data suggest that 2012 is only a little worse in terms of total dryness than 1988, and another shift of the same degree over the NEXT 25 years would only be slightly worse.

          Still, climate change is an accelerating process, and it could still be that bad. There are other factors like dwindling aquifers and increasing industrial usage of water involved too, but I think all that might not actually add up to enough to overcome Americans' lack of interest in boring, important things like water rights. I should have reviewed that information first, so I apologize for jumping on that scenario.

      • by Synerg1y (2169962)
        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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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.

        • Re:Quick... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Krojack (575051) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:48PM (#42032083)

          we have ways to get fresh water out of the ocean if we get that desperate.

          Which we already do. Only problem is, it requires a massive amount if energy to do. It's prohibitively expensive, especially when compared to tapping regional and local sources of freshwater. Kinda like those electric cars out there. Everyone would love to have one but not when they can get an internal combustion engine for 1/2 or even 1/4 the cost.

        • More than 1 billion people don't have access to safe drinking water, and >2.5 billion people lack adequate sanitation. >3000 children die every day from water borne diseases. Go ahead, talk to them [worldwatercouncil.org] about reverse osmosis. Better yet, fund it for them.

          Water shortages aren't making headlines

          where you live. Just because you are not aware of something does not mean it's not happening. Just saying.

          BTW, a drought is something like a water shortage, ain't it? [wunderground.com]

      • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by fadethepolice (689344)
          I work for a company that cleans groundwater in the marcellus play area. Fracking is not capable of "Destroying" underground water supplies, it can temporarily pollute some areas. The chemicals involved in fracking are not that bad. It is a rather simple and straightforward process to clean up groundwater. Currently, most of our really bad cleanup jobs involve gasoline spills, which are much more toxic, and of an order of magnitude more common. What your should really be worried about is in-situ partia
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As a Canadian, let me help you out. Just go after Quebec. The rest of Canada will be glad to be rid of it, and you still get a fair stretch to the North.

      On a note related to the topic, it'd be nice to have more than the bottom few hundred kilometers to do something with. We have an absolute crapton of space that's essentially unuseable except as permafrost-filled tundra. I'm sure over time more people would be willing to move to Canada if a) our winters even right at the US/Canada border weren't horrend

    • by moeinvt (851793)

      Won't do any good. They use the Celsius scale.

    • And let me tell you I'm having a REAL hard time having a hard time with global warming.

      Bring it on, is what I say.

      Locally grown bananas would be a-ok with me.

  • 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.

  • Now let me go get my canoe; need to be at the office soon.

  • 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.

    • by Revotron (1115029) on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:07PM (#42031539)
      http://xkcd.com/605/ [xkcd.com]

      This morning at 8AM, the temperature was 54 degrees F. The temperature at 3PM is 75 degrees F. Scientists predict that by next week, the Earth's surface will turn to magma.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot (19622)

      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.

    • 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!

  • They have enough land, and enough oil in tar sands too. Too bad, Canada, we need some breathing space lebensraum [wikipedia.org], so we are going to have to invade you and take you over. Too bad your experiments with pinko single payer health care and welfare state has to end this way. Learn the fine distinctions between co-pay, co-insurance, deductible and life-time caps.
  • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:03PM (#42031473)

    If we hit a warming of 4 degrees, you can forget about nations or countries as we know it. The civilization may well collapse. If we hit 6 degrees, say hello to the next mass extinction. "It would cause a mass extinction of almost all life and probably reduce humanity to a few struggling groups of embattled survivors clinging to life near the poles." Details on this article [independent.co.uk].

    No idea if this is change one can believe in, but it looks like a very serious change... er, problem.

    • by jovius (974690) on Monday November 19, 2012 @07:04PM (#42033111)

      I learned new concepts today regarding the Global Warming.

      • An anoxic event [wikipedia.org], which is related to the sea temperature, could potentially lead to increased hydrogen sulfide emissions [wikipedia.org], which can poison the atmosphere.
      • Vast areas of Earth can be rendered uninhabitable because of the "sudden" rise in the wet-bulb temperature [sciencedaily.com]. No time to adapt.
      • Evapotranspiration [sciencedaily.com] may already be severely disrupted. The consequence may be a feedback loop to a drying Earth.
      • Clathrate gun hypotesis [wikipedia.org] - the rising temperatures lead to a feedback loop of ever increasing methane

      It's worrisome that currently everything is pointing to an increased possibility of aforementioned things happening. All of this while the humanity itself is releasing as much CO2 into the atmosphere per year as an extinction level super volcano [usgs.gov].

      I'm not sure what to think of this. I feel like we already all past the point of no return. The forced reduction of the human activity because of the change in the external conditions can be considered as a natural negative feedback cycle.

  • 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 crazyjj (2598719) * on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:22PM (#42031759)

      The U.S. and Europe aren't to blame, Sparky. Our CO2 emissions have been either steady on on a downward trend for some time. If you want to point fingers, look at China.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19, 2012 @05:52PM (#42032125)

        And who is buying their exports en masse, using their cheap and dirty power imputs to stock the shelves of Walmart and every other big box retailer, driving down the cost of goods? All the while, externalizing the environmental costs on all of humanity. We are drug addicts blaming the dealer. No one is blameless.

        Saying "China bad!" while buying their industrial output hand over fist, not realizing the consequences of our own actions isn't looking at the whole problem. The fix? Get off the consumption treadmill - build durable, local, and repairable. Live in walkable communities.

        We don't have a chance in hell. I live 10 kilometres from my office, but biking is risking your life - the infrastructure is car centric, sharing the narrow congested pothole filled roads with cars doing 60km plus. I then sit a a screen all day. I could telecommute, but our culture is such that it would be a bad career move, because physical presence is still oddly preferred, even though the real estate savings and productivity gains objectively make sense to a smart company.

        The fact that we can't tackle these simple changes in our communities even before getting into international treaty complexities gives me little faith.

      • by Kaenneth (82978)

        How much of China's pollution is to produce luxury goods for US/EU vs serving their own people?

        Specifically, how many factories have been relocated to China, not just for cheap labor, but because of lax environmental laws?

      • by T Murphy (1054674)
        Well someone has to lead the way if things are to get better, are you trying to suggest we wait for China? China and India are trying to catch up to the US, so if we can set an example as a sustainable society, there may still be a chance at limiting global warming. Given America's absurd CO2 production per capita, I think it is safe to say we need to make the first move.
  • 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 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

  • .... front office, the World Bank. You mean the previous neocon there, Robert Zoellick (and long-time member of the Trilateral Commission --- I know, I know, the Ameritards refuse to acknowledge influence groups, etc., ad nauseum), never realized any global climate change was going on??? Geez, thanks World Bankster, front office to the banksters --- that's kinda like all those slimey douchetards who created and sold and profited from all their debt,and now claim it belongs to the rest of us, and we must e
  • Just curious....

    Why is a bank involved in climate science...???

    Oh, that's right, global tax would greatly benefit a World Bank.

    All makes sense now....

  • I suppose that this is related to the sea level rising [nasa.gov] observed by the NASA. One thing is speech with an agenda and another cold (ok, warm in this case) facts.

    We could do something about it? We should? The problem is that there is no "we" there, probably the ones that could do something (and probably have a role in the current situation) won't.

  • 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?

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...