Global Warming On Pace For 4 Degrees: World Bank Worried 439
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?"
I save money! (Score:4, Funny)
I get ocean front property! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I get ocean property! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The 20-yr linear trend for the UAH LT is a statistically significant +0.20 +/- 0.04 C/decade (uncertainty is the 95% confidence level).
Re: (Score:3)
Right, and the 33 year trend is just over 0.13/decade, and the 15 year trend is flat, and the ten year trend is slightly negative, which pretty much makes nonsense of the 0.04 C/decade "at the 95% confidence level" to the extent that fitting any curve you like to a selected (or if you prefer, "cherrypicked" segment of a highly variable dataset makes sense in the first place. The predictive value of any of these fits is diddly, joined by its friend squat.
My point is that that there is precisely zero evidenc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because starting in the middle of the Roman Warm Period, the Holocene Optimum, or the Medieval Warm Period would be too confusing. Might as well start in 16000 BCE -- that's a good time, d'you think? If we fit a straight line fit from there, it predicts what, 10 or 15C of warming over the next 10000 or so years. You tell me what the signal is, and what is the noise, using YOUR favorite cherrypicked interval, or we could look at the entire dataset back to the Ordovician-Silurian transition (Ice age that b
Quick... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
Sure, cause I always trust Investment Wankers for unparalleled, unbiased insight into science.
Hows the carbon market these days?
Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
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)
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:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You know what happened when we discovered the holes in Newtonian physics? We got relativistic physics.
Climate modeling is insanely complex, and no one working with the models would state that they are perfect, or that they can ever be perfect. However, the models are predictive. Ignoring them waiting for a perfect model, especially when it's well established that we can't have a perfect model, is just burying your head in the sand.
Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
they're not just pulling this stuff out of thin air
Actually that's where you're wrong , climatologists are by definition always pulling this stuff (predictions etc) out of thin air (hint: it's fundamental to their science).
Re: (Score:3)
they're not just pulling this stuff out of thin air.
Well, literally speaking, they are... but it's extremely well-instrumented air.
It's not like they're cosmologists pulling gravity models out of a black hole.
Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:Quick... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It is not a straight line between local weather conditions and climate. I have no idea why you would try to peddle such a ludicrous oversimplification.
Re:Quick... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell we have hard enough time predicting the weather beyond 5 days in the future.
I think I see why you have trouble understanding the basic science, weather is NOT climate. Climate is the statistics of weather, unlike weather which is mathematically chaotic and is currently impossible to predict more than a few days ahead, climate is extremely stable over human time scales, climate forcings [wikipedia.org] are relatively well understood and lend themselves to finite element analysis in the same way as many other complex natural phenomena are modeled for scientific and engineering purposes.
What leads me to trust these predictions 50 years from now?
A better question to ask is what leads you to doubt "the republic of science" has failed to lead to the best available answer on this particular question, emotion, ignorance, corporate propaganda, intellectual laziness? - There's certainly very little logic in your post and even then is based on a common (and fundamental) misunderstanding that psuedo-skeptics have been exploiting for decades.
One thing you will never hear these scientists say is, "We predict the Earth will warm but honestly we just don't know, it could end up getting cooler."
You hear it all the time, you are just not listening, uncertainty is expresses with something called error bars (as seen in the WP link above), you should learn how to read them because they are quite useful from a risk management POV. For example, the insurance industry has been routinely offsetting the risks identified by climate scientists for the last 10yrs by adding the expected costs to your premiums.
As for TFA, the "4 degrees by 2100" prediction has been widely accepted by climate scientists for over 20yrs and is based on a "business as usual" scenario. The only thing about the prediction that has significantly changed is the certainty of the prediction (ie: the error bars). The scientific advise is to try and limit the increase to 2 degrees to avoid further unnecessary death and destruction.
Replacing the planets energy infrastructure may seem like a herculean task, but my bet is it will happen right under our noses and when it's done people will forget how far we have come (as they have already done with acid rain and pea-soupers). Not a single coal fired plant currently operating on the planet existed when I was born (1959), every one of them has been built (and often rebuilt) in my life-time and they are now much cleaner, but they now also service more people than there were on the entire planet when I was born. I believe science and common sense will prevail and we will adapt our infrastructure rapidly over the next 30-40yrs (the working life of a coal fired generator). Luddite billionaires who continue to deny reality will be left sitting on a worthless coal mines bombarded by negligence lawsuits from anyone with so much as a wheeze.
Re:Quick... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Quick... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually Mainstream science has been fairly unequivocal since long before the 1970s. You can subract a century off that for when Fourier first demonstrated the green-house effect in the laboratory and started warning about the possible impacts of what it might mean for the industrial revolution of the time.
Scientists have been saying this for WELL over a century that if you increase CO2, you trap in Infra-red spectrum energies really seriously , and that means things get hot.
For it not to work, it requires some very novel physics to be invented and it would require completely throwing out a huge amount of current physics , including almost the entirity of astronomy and the practice of using absorbsion spectra for analysis (Since apparently atmospheres have stopped following physics and dont absorb shit and it all bounces now)
Denialism is loon science.
Re: (Score:3)
Economics is a science the same way theology is.
Re:Quick... (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when you remove all the trees. Stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:5, Funny)
Re:Quick... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Won't do any good. They use the Celsius scale.
I'm in Canada (Score:3)
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.
Re:Quick... (Score:5, Informative)
You heard wrong:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Please reevaluate your news sources.
Re: (Score:3)
You've overstepped into hyperbole. They just have repeatedly landed themselves into the top 10 hottest, and one of them(2008 was it?) was a number 11. Be careful, because the people you're disagreeing with will seize upon the fact that you're wrong as complete invalidation of anything you're saying.
Tragedy of the commons (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
In Other News (Score:5, Informative)
Little Change in Global Drought in the past 60 Years [nature.com]
Don't worry, global warming is a fraud (Score:5, Funny)
Now let me go get my canoe; need to be at the office soon.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like these guys [youtube.com]?
The temps go higher, time-frame lower every year (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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.
Actually, http://xkcd.com/164/ [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea (Score:5, Interesting)
"It can't be real because I don't see it" isn't a valid question and is treated as such.
Do you know how much money would fall in their laps if they actually *could* prove it isn't happening? Coal and oil money would make them rich beyond imagination. And yet they don't. Because the data isn't there to support that, whereas decades of data show warming is happening.
Re: (Score:3)
Is this really that hard to understand? There are several potential avenues for profit if they coudl prove that global warming isn't happening:
1) Coal companies would probably want to hire the guy who disproved global warming (they already pay a bunch of people to study it)
2) The Heatland Institute would fund them for a speaking tour to promote their research (they already pay a bunch of people to deny it is happening)
3) They could now have a career as a prominent "conservative" or "Republican" speaker at
If Canada is spared that is enough for USA (Score:2, Informative)
nonsense, US has more oil than the Saudis (Score:2)
we can handle ourselves, and vacation in the oceanfront states of Utah, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Iowa. shame the Great Lakes got overrun, but hey, Marlin fishing in Wisconsin ain't bad.
World Bank, saviours of the universe. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Nations? What nations? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Nations? What nations? (Score:5, Informative)
I learned new concepts today regarding the Global Warming.
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.
And in the mean time US OIl production increase... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Banksters in on the scam now (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Banksters in on the scam now (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Why do you need to refer to Gore or bankers, when the scientists are telling you what is happening?
Because it's easier to dismiss the claims of bankers and politicians than the claims of scientists.
1st world countries (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah let's worry about how this will affect the 1st world countries, those are the real victims here
Ooooohhhh...!! "Stern warning from the banksters' (Score:2)
World Bank... (Score:2)
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....
A trend is a trend (Score:2)
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.
This is why I prefer the term "climate change". (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Cause? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cause? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was code for "I don't know the answer, so I'm asking a question".
Re: (Score:3)
You don't seem to be getting an answer to your "what percent is man made" question.
That's odd.
Re:Cause? --- thank you! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 business
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 's
Re: (Score:2)
3 to 4% of what? Of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now, about a third is due to humans burning fossil fuels [wikipedia.org]. If we stop emitting carbon dioxide, the warming will level off within a few decades. If we continue to burn fossil fuels at an increasing rate, the warming will be several degrees Celsius this century, and it won't stop there.
Re: (Score:3)
That's 3-4% per year, and we've been burning fossil fuels for 150 years. Luckily, nature absorbs some of it, but humans have upset the balance.
Except the models that correctly predicted that surface warming would be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and the models th
Re: (Score:3)
Volcanoes release 130 million tons of CO2 per year, while the burning of fossil fuels releases 9 billion tons per year.
Hansen's 1988 model was about 10% higher [realclimate.org] than actual
Re: (Score:3)
Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures)
Percent of what?
So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything
Now you're just talking out your ass...
our 'measures' to combat it seem primarily designed to fill government and large business coffers
...and generating a conspiracy theory to justify it.
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.
Yes, I'm sure you'll be happy to trade your current cushy lifestyle for the dog-eat-dog world of a Mad Max movie.
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.
I agree that nuclear power would be a good thing, but the evidence suggests that our civilization isn't mature enough to manage it. Too much profit incentive to cut corners on design, construction, and operations.
Re:Cause? (Score:5, Informative)
So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything, so it would seem our science on the matter
is incorrect.
You sir, are a tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A 3-4% increase in atmospheric carbon can have drastic effects on temperature, so that argument is stupid.
True. But if humans only contribute 3-4% to the 3-4% increase in atmospheric carbons, what effect would human reduction in carbon consumption have on temperature. I am betting on nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
What if, on the other hand, humans are contributing about 200% of the observed increase. Impossible you say? No so, natural cycles are pulling about half of the CO2 we produce out of the atmosphere. Furthermore humanity is the only significant source of CO2 emissions in most years, human emissions are close to 100 times larger than the next nearest natural source.
Human emissions have increased the CO2 in the air by about 25% over the last century. If we reduced our emissions to nothing, temperatures wou
Re: (Score:3)
"as ecosystems ADJUST, funny how log lasting natural systems tend to be highly resilient and self-adjusting"
I've been pointing this out since 1985. Nobody listens.
In 2010 NASA and the NOAA bitch slaped the IPCC with this. "Your model is broken".
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
ht [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Global atmospheric CO2 levels are highly cyclic, and have been above the current level many many times before
Not according to this: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html [noaa.gov]. (You need to watch all 3 minutes of it to get the point. It's rather dramatic.)
--
.nosig
Re:Cause? (Score:4, Funny)
100% of anthropogenic global warming comes from man-made causes.
Don't concern yourself with how much of global warming is natural. We should be trying to limit man's contribution.
Re:Cause? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if you spit in the ocean the sea will rise. (just not by much).
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)
Your posting bullshit:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm [skepticalscience.com]
No folks, AGW did not stop in 1998.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also true that some of the graphs in your link are overstating their case by presenting very sketchy conjectural model data or drastically less complete measurement summaries in the same chart as modern, rigorous measurements. Extrapolation o
Re: (Score:2)
Citations?
I thought last summer was the hottest on record, that does not sound stable.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Because Slashdot is mostly a liberal rag, with a chunk of Libertarians, and a smithering of conservatives.
Re:Oh nooo (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn it, read before writing will you?
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. I think the bankers are engineering a global currency collapse as the trigger for establishment of authoritarian government. This will translate into a vast decline in the living standards for the vast majority of the population in both North America and Europe.
If I'm paranoid, someone tell me the end game of the current trend of perpetual debt accumulation coupled with steady erosion of individual liberties. A "managed" collapse is the only explanation that makes sense to me.
When the banking el