For the First Time On Record, Human-Caused Climate Change Has Rerouted an Entire River (washingtonpost.com) 256
A team of scientists on Monday documented what they're describing as the first case of large-scale river reorganization as a result of human-caused climate change (Editor's note: could be paywalled; alternative source). From a report: They found that in mid-2016, the retreat of a very large glacier in Canada's Yukon territory led to the rerouting of its vast stream of meltwater from one river system to another -- cutting down flow to the Yukon's largest lake, and channeling freshwater to the Pacific Ocean south of Alaska, rather than to the Bering Sea. The researchers dubbed the reorganization an act of "rapid river piracy," saying that such events had often occurred in the Earth's geologic past, but never before, to their knowledge, as a sudden present-day event. They also called it "geologically instantaneous." "The river wasn't what we had seen a few years ago. It was a faded version of its former self," lead study author Daniel Shugar of the University of Washington at Tacoma said of the Slims River, which lost much of its flow because of the glacial change. "It was barely flowing at all. Literally, every day, we could see the water level dropping, we could see sandbars popping out in the river."
Oh, this is going to be great (Score:4, Funny)
Pass the popcorn!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only beavers are allowed to alter to suit their needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Only beavers are allowed to alter to suit their needs.
Beavers' needs are everyone's needs. When they dam a river, they create a new marsh, which ends up providing habitat for more animals than a scrubby zone surrounding a riverbed. It increases the water-holding capacity of the land, which decreases flooding. When humans dam a river, we look for a very different site; and thus we interfere with fish, we flood regions which were formerly animal habitats, and we create the potential for a further environmental disaster should the dam fail.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score:5, Insightful)
Addendum to my last:
Note that I live near the Mississippi River, which, until it was leveed all to hell-and-gone, routinely shifted its channel from year to year. So the notion of a river rerouting itself isn't terribly surprising to me, nor is it really that big a deal, unless it reroutes itself over someone's house or a town (which the Mississippi used to do from time to time in the 19th Century).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score:4, Informative)
Nah, because through the power of bigger engineering, we can put the bastard back. The Miss would have jumped over to the Atchafalaya channel years ago if it wasn't for engineering intervention.
Re: (Score:3)
The Miss would have jumped over to the Atchafalaya channel years ago
Is that the one that looks like a shark?
Re: (Score:2)
Rivers sway back and forth naturally. They are a dynamic, if slowly-changing, feature.
Increased glacial flow would just accelerate this process.
Re: (Score:3)
Has it routinely emptied across another continental divide? Nope. Then what's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it doesn't sit right atop a continental divide, unlike the river in TFA.
IOW, it's still not all that big a deal. Interesting, and I'm really curious to see the long term effects (if any, it may reroute itself back next year). But not something to panic over....
Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that I live near the Mississippi River, which, until it was leveed all to hell-and-gone, routinely shifted its channel from year to year. So the notion of a river rerouting itself isn't terribly surprising to me, nor is it really that big a deal, unless it reroutes itself over someone's house or a town (which the Mississippi used to do from time to time in the 19th Century).
Sure, but this is well known from rivers that run over a plain - they tend to meander, silt builds up etc. The effect is rather more dramatic when the source dries up or goes to another river. It is the same, basic processes that are behind, but whereas the meandering river phenomenon is common, the interesting thing about this case is that it can be attributed directly to climate change: the glacier has melted away to such a degree that it now drains away through an entirely different channel. It would be great if people would not be so dismissive about these things - the scientists that bring these things up don't do so in order to get high approval rating on social media; they aren't airheaded celebrities craving attention; they point out observations that they think are potentially important, and which they suggest you should have a look at. It may feel great saying stuff like 'Yeah, shit happens; so what?" - right until the day when shit happens to you, particularly if you could have done something about it if only you could have been bothered.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that I live near the Mississippi River, which, until it was leveed all to hell-and-gone, routinely shifted its channel from year to year.
That's nothing compared to the Nile. However, the situation is different, so you can't directly compare one to the other.
Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in Iceland we got a new highest waterfall out of the deal. Our highest used to be Glymur, but the glacier Morsárjökull receded up a cliff and in its place left a series of waterfalls that are higher than Glymur (now called Morsárfossar).
Glymur is prettier though. [google.com] Morsárfossar [staticflickr.com] was prettier partially glaciated, like the cliffs to the right still are [ytimg.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Morsárfossar... I'm curious, what was it called before the earthquake shook up the name?
Re: (Score:2)
MorsÃrfossar... I'm curious, what was it called before the earthquake shook up the name?
AÃfmoosssrrr.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, earthquakes are pretty common in the area near Vatnajökull :) But to break it down:
jökull = glacier.
fossar = waterfalls. foss = waterfall.
á = river (ár is genitive / possessive)
mor: in this context I can think of several possibilities. One is mor as in sediment, which seems perfectly reasonable coming off of a glacier. Another is short for mórauður (reddish brown - lit. "peat red"). But probably the former. mors is genitive / possessive.
So you have the Morsá (
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, explaining a joke doesn't make it funny, ok?
That's like trying to explain the joke about the great Finn Hunde Anleinen who was so extremely popular in Germany that they named a lot of parks after him.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't my joke, so it doesn't hurt me if I ruin it ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone living next to a river can easily and instantly tell you why a river finding a new river bed is a REALLY, REALLY, REALLY bad thing.
Unless of course you always wanted to have a swimming pool with running fresh water access in the basement.
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up on the Ohio. It's not a "very bad thing", it's somethi you accept living on a river. Sure, the Corp puts a lot of effort into preventing it, which actually does very, very bad things to the ecosystem.
Which, in turn, is why people living on a river is a "very bad thing".
It just doesn't make sense for humans to live on flood plains any more, now that we're not dependent on rivers for transport. And the government should never bail out anyone who lives on a flood plain, at least not more than giving them one of those ikea flat pack shelters and telling them not to put it on a flood plain.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score:5, Informative)
Good or bad, what proof is there, this is indeed "human-caused"?
You can at least start with the IPCC report [ipcc.ch] for a round-up of the science, then look at the scientific journals that have been published since then for any updates that have been made.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With claims it's "human-caused" without any scientific basis. And all these smart people lauding this shit can't answer how much of it is human contribution. Is it 5%? 100%? I'm not denying climate change, hell, i'm not denying that it's in part human cause... but screaming that human-caused climate change rerouted a river is a fucking hyperbole.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that they haven't produced reports stating what proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from what source. Have a look at the report to which I linked rather than just assuming that nobody talks about this.
Besides, who cares what the percentage is that can be apportioned to humans. If the equilibrium is out of balance, then it is up to us to solve the problem. Who else is going to if we don't?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that they haven't produced reports stating what proportion of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from what source.
The people shouting "Where's the proof?" loudest are the people least likely to actually look at the proof if you give it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
I like not this news ! Bring me some other news !
Re: (Score:3)
The oceans and terrestrial biosphere are net carbon sinks. They have sunk 55-60% of the carbon emitted by the combustion of fossil fuels and land use change.
All the increase is due to human activity. Natural systems are balancing some of it. (Hence ocean acidification and CO2 fertilization).
In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphe [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If the "equilibrium is out of balance" there will be shifts and changes in the system until equilibrium is achieved.
So, once the sun stops adding energy to the system things should settle down. Until then you should buckle your seat belt. Its going to be a bumpy ride.
Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score:4, Insightful)
With claims it's "human-caused" without any scientific basis.
No, showing the reasoning with references to the hundreds of peer reviewed scholarly papers that provide the basis for that reasoning is with scientific basis.
"Without scientific basis" means without reference to the scholarly literature, and generally also without sound reasoning or true axioms.
And all these smart people lauding this shit can't answer how much of it is human contribution. Is it 5%? 100%?
As of 2000 [skepticalscience.com] it's about 80% of the past 100 years, and about 110% of the past 50 years.
I'm not denying climate change, hell, i'm not denying that it's in part human cause... but screaming that human-caused climate change rerouted a river is a fucking hyperbole.
The current climate change is human caused. That's not hyperbole. It's certainly not fucking hyperbole. And calling something fucking hyperbole without any scientific basis is ironic considering how your post began.
Re: (Score:2)
how much of it is human contribution. Is it 5%? 100%?
It's about 100%, and probably slightly more than that. Natural factors have been driving temperatures down. See Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, or Gillett et al. 2012.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry that would be because rivers don't change course on their own.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
This one is particularly good
http://www.npr.org/sections/in... [npr.org]
Anyone who had read their Mark Twain was aware of the Mississippi doing this all the time.
Here's more
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Most people who have at least the basic knowledge of Earth Science will tell you changing course is what rivers do.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as you don't know the difference between land and sea ice, it's safe to ignore your comments on this subject, as you have demonstrated your lack of fundamental knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as you don't know the difference between land and sea ice,
Says the man who just proved he doesn't know the difference between a river and glacier.
Re: (Score:2)
Bruh youre making us look bad...
Re: (Score:2)
The river in the article changed course the lake that used to be its source emptied in another direction that was previously blocked by ice.
The precipitating event for all of this happened in summer 2016, when meltwater from the retreating Kaskawulsh glacier burst through a channel of ice, suddenly draining a glacial lake that had fed Slims river and directing waters into a different river that ultimately heads south toward the Gulf of Alaska. Previously, these waters had ultimately fed into the vast Yukon river, which empties on Alaska’s west coast. - The fucking article.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry that would be because rivers don't change course on their own.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
This one is particularly good
http://www.npr.org/sections/in... [npr.org]
Anyone who had read their Mark Twain was aware of the Mississippi doing this all the time.
Here's more
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Most people who have at least the basic knowledge of Earth Science will tell you changing course is what rivers do.
I think you missed the point. Of course, rivers can change course by either their own or direct human influences. In this case, TFA said it is from the climate change. I believe humans are parts of the climate change. However, I'm still not sure how much impact of human causes to the climate change which in turn causes the river to change course. There seems to be a missing link (explanation) to the whole process. It is rather a big leap to conclusion. Need more study of those impacts before making a big ju
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing "missing" about it, the human contribution is AT LEAST 100% and probably MORE than that, because all the evidence (and there are several studies linked higher in this same thread) is that the natural factors are currently pushing temperatures DOWN - so without human effects it would actually be getting COLDER, that makes any increases MORE than 100% due to human activity.
This has been studied extensively, and it's thing for which we have overwhelming evidence. It's just the latest stake in
Re: (Score:2)
Look ... I know nobody here reads the article - but right there in it, it explains how this is NOTHING LIKE the Missisipi. That's a change at the END Of the river, not the START of the river.
Changes at the start of a glacial fed river should be nearly impossible, and in a period of less than 50-million years, it shouldn't be possible at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Paid for by the people that profit from the fear mongering.
Bunch of chicken little politicians making money.
News flash, the Earth changes, and always will. The weather has always been impossible to predict more than 10 days in advance. We only have 7 days notice because now we have satellites in space watching clouds and rain move.
The old timers will tell you. It's a long established pattern before the news agencies started hyping it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of your 'logic' means it's OK to dump billions of tons of CO2 into the air every year?
Re: (Score:3)
And here we see an example of complete bullshit.
Human emissions are 120 times volcanic eruptions.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. - Scientific American. [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the wars (though they fall inside the period and are PART of what human activity has dumped) but I do know you're talking bullshit about volcanoes. You're probably even talking bullshit if you add volcanoes to the wars !
The American Geophysical Union did a study - and found that the total average annual CO2 output from volcanoes is only 0.25% (that's a quarter of 1%) of what is put out by coal plants. Just coal plants alone, in other words, is 400 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
More-over v
Re: (Score:2)
The mine you reference used to be under a glacier. The stuff in the mine froze because it was abandoned and under a glacier. 100 years ago, the glacier might have been expanding, but now it's retreated. The facts of your anecdote are entirely consistently with the mainstream theories of anthropogenic global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
The IPCC is funded by the World Meteorological Organisation and by the United Nations Environment Programme.
But the reports are written by scientist volunteers.
How do you claim "fear mongering" is monetized bu these bodies?
The political review waters down the results. This is because a democracy doesn't want to spend any money now to counter a problem what will fall in someone else's term.
Ther
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence please ?
Re: (Score:2)
There was a huge thing about it where emails between scientists were exposed. Feeling too lazy right now to dig up evidence you're not going to bother reading anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... scientific evidence is not "proof" of a scientific claim in your mind ?
Please go jump of a building. Because the proof that gravity exists is, in fact, significantly weaker than the evidence that human are causing climate change. By your own standard of evidence - you should be fine ! And the difference is, by doubting the science that way, if you're wrong, you only fucked over yourself. Right now your scientific illiteracy is fucking over all of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific evidence would've been proof — if it existed. But IPCC report does not have it. Nor is the entire discipline of "Climate Science" particularly well-established. This is partly due to the very nature of their domain — climate change is a very slow process making reproducible experiments very hard. What hampers it further is politization — Statists have seized on it long ago to justify further encroachment
Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score:4, Informative)
Good or bad, what proof is there, this is indeed "human-caused"?
It's not like you intend to read it.
Re: (Score:2)
And it isn't like you would accept any evidence that proved you wrong.
Why don't you actually try that and see if it's true?
Re: Oh, this is going to be great (Score:2)
What part of co2 is a greenhouse gas don't you believe in, its a simple concept that is easily proved in a lab and humans have released staggering amounts of. Co2 into the atmosphere, enough to blanket the entire globe with several inches of co2. If you had a greenhouse with several inches of glass, it would heat up inside substantially., we're very lucky that the ocean's have taken most of the heat energy because if it hadn't we'd be very very fkkd right now, 30deg C hotter iirc. Where fkkn preview gone?
Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score:4, Informative)
Good or bad, what proof is there, this is indeed "human-caused"?
Whose fault is it if you are ignorant of the basic science of climate?
Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score:4, Informative)
1) If you measure all the sources of radiative forcing [epa.gov], you see that the natural ones are pretty much negligible with respect to the current warming, where as the "human-caused" ones are large.
2) There have been papers that split the warming into the warming that would have happened from natural forcing, and that which would have happened from anthropogenic forcing [skepticalscience.com]. ((paper) [stat.epfl.ch]. Satisfyingly, the warming that has happened from the sum of the forcings, is approximately the sum of the warmings from each forcing. So it's nice and additive, therefore statements like "x% of the warming of the past y years is anthropogenic" are meaningful. Such as "80% of the warming of the past 100 years is anthropogenic" or "110% of the warming of the past 50 years is anthropogenic".
Re: (Score:2)
How should we if you can't even be assed to remember how to properly spell his name?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*munchmunch*
Yup. But the popcorn tastes better when you can simply enjoy the show because you don't care about the characters in the play anymore.
geologically instantaneous (Score:3)
A slam-dunk! (Score:2, Informative)
"The researchers found only a minuscule probability that the retreat of Kaskawulsh glacier — which retracted by nearly half a mile from 1956 to 2007 — could have occurred in what they called a “constant climate.” They therefore inferred that the events in question could be attributed to human-caused climate change."
Chain of conclusions (Score:3, Insightful)
"The researchers found only a minuscule probability that the retreat of Kaskawulsh glacier — which retracted by nearly half a mile from 1956 to 2007 — could have occurred in what they called a “constant climate.” They therefore inferred that the events in question could be attributed to human-caused climate change."
So they think it's unlikely to have occurred in a "constant climate", and among the imaginable range of non-constant climates they hinted the events *could* be attributed to "human-caused climate change". (Whatever that exactly means, given that there are infinite causes of climate change, many of them significant.)
So, logically, WaPo titles the article "For the first time on record, human-caused climate change has rerouted an entire river." Good job, journalists.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say whatever contributes to that 200K cycle you mentioned. I could be wrong but I imagine those factors are not well understood.
Also I wonder how on-clock we believe these cycles have been coming in the past. Have they all been well within that 15% estimated drift of today? 15% doesn't sound like much for a system so incredibly complex. I may be wrong.
Re:Chain of conclusions (Score:5, Informative)
Also I wonder how on-clock we believe these cycles have been coming in the past. Have they all been well within that 15% estimated drift of today? 15% doesn't sound like much for a system so incredibly complex. I may be wrong.
Sounds like you don't really know just how fucked thing have become. Using ice core samples, they were able to calculate how much atmospheric CO2 there was in the past. Here's a graph of it including our really fucked present. [skeptic.com]
Re:Chain of conclusions (Score:5, Informative)
Also:
- Watch sea levels rise
- Watch unprecedented king tides and storm surges destroy billions in coastal property
- Watch millions of coastal & river delta farmers lose their farms due to salt
- Watch global threat levels rise from increased resource conflicts
- Watch temperatures rise
- Watch tropical diseases spread to new areas
- Watch unique and valuable reefs bleach and die
- Watch billions of tourism dollars disappear
- Watch rainfall patterns change drastically
- Watch farmers try to cope with drought & floods like they've never seen before
- Watch rising ocean acidification attack crucial food-web ecosystems
- Watch rising risks of runaway feedback from e.g. Siberian methane traps
- Watch deniers eventually change their tune to "oh well, it's too late to do anything now"
Re: (Score:2)
We're not "all gonna die", and the Earth will keep spinning. But it sure as heck is gonna be expensive - trillions, by the end of the century. But if we can reduce that cost drastically by investing in carbon-neutral industries early on, why on earth would you want to oppose that?
Re: (Score:2)
The World Resources Institute estimates that all aviation (not just tourism) contributes [wri.org] around 1.7% of greenhouse emissions. Compare that to 10.5% for road transport, 13.8% for agriculture, and 29% for electricity - and you can see that jet-setting tourists are a pretty tiny slice of the problem.
Contrary to popular straw men, a sustainable future does not require drastic slashing of lifestyles or economic growth. We could save nearly 50% of our global CO2 emissions simply by transitioning to carbon-neutral
Re: (Score:2)
It's from the Vostok ice core (Petit 2000 [ornl.gov]). You could also have found the same graph at NOAA [nasa.gov], should you have bothered to look before declaring it made-up.
Re: (Score:3)
For the last 400 thousand years, atmospheric CO2 has varied regularly by +/- 60 ppm. We are now 105 ppm (30%) past the highest recorded levels, and you think that's a "tiny increase"?
Re: (Score:2)
Except the evidence says exactly the opposite [ucsd.edu]. Last time the Earth had over 400 ppm CO2 was 4.5 million years ago - and temperatures then were 4-5 degrees C higher than today (10 degrees C higher at the poles). Considering that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for many decades (some of it for centuries), and that we've only seen ~1 degree of warming so far, it's far more likely that 80% of the warming is yet to come (even if we stop excess emissions today).
Re: (Score:2)
Why, are you suggesting that short term carbon spikes could rise and fall so quickly that they wouldn't show up in an ice core? Do you have any evidence to support that speculation? And what mechanisms are you proposing that might cause this - both the sudden CO2 release, and the equally-sudden re-uptake?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say whatever contributes to that 200K cycle you mentioned. I could be wrong but I imagine those factors are not well understood.
That would be orbital variations [wikipedia.org], which are very well understood.
We did it! (Score:2)
It took 200 years but we finally managed to piss of mother nature! Now take your river and go home! ;)
geologically instantaneous is nothing new (Score:2)
Stilt houses on Deltas and flood plains (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Your hand waiving is noted. The only losers in a wholesale move are shareholders in fossil fuel companies and the rich who might have to pay some higher taxes. Meanwhile the rest of the economy would see the greatest boom since the post-WWII era. Kind of a no-brainer.
Dam! (Score:3)
always questionable (Score:2)
Rivers will naturally change course if they are not forced in to their old channels. How this escapes these people is beyond me. I'll grant all of our carbon release may be accelerating the natural heat and cool cycles the earth goes through. The problem is that they keep making claims about events that happen without human intervention for millennia.
Must have been really surprised by Lake Agassiz (Score:2)
But that wasn't "man-made climate change"...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the spot I am sitting right now used to be covered by hundreds of meters of ice.
Then it was covered by hundreds of meters of water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Then it drained, and here I am. Yes, it took 10s of thousands of years. But it is also a very huge change. I for one am happy to be living during an interglacial.
If you have Google Earth there are some cool kml files here; http://www.geostrategis.com/p_... [geostrategis.com]
10k years to drain but via large sudden outflows (Score:2)
E.g.,
"Between approximately 11,100 and 10,900 years ago, Lake Agassiz’s north and northeastern shores consisted of a continuous cliff of ice, but its eastern and western shores formed what geologists refer to as the “Campbell Beach.” This extensive sand and gravel ridge, most evident in south-western Manitoba, is possibly the most eloquent testimony to the existence of this once-great lake. Shortly thereafter, a new outlet through the ice opened into the Lake Superior basin, thus allowing
Not a "climate change denier", not alarmist either (Score:3)
Even if warming is part of a natural cycle, it does seem quite likely that man is exacerbating the situation with CO2 emissions and other pollution. If nothing else, if we could really run our societies without belching pollution into the atmosphere, it'd be the better alternative. I mean, pollution is just bad, m'kay?
So please don't call me a "denier". My issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" seem to be based on science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a cloak hiding the proposer's socialist SJW motives.
For example, the IPCC report on climate change...Let's see...it doesn't seem to be about the effect of climate on plants and animals (and humans). It does mention climatey things... It said that without action to address the problem, by the year 2100, hundreds of millions of people could be affected by coastal flooding and displaced due to land loss. "Impacts from recent extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires, show significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to climate variability," the report warned.
But mainly, the IPCC report seems to be about poverty and income inequality and funding needed to address it.
The report also said climate change had the largest impact on people who are socially and economically marginalized. "Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low and lower-middle income countries, including high mountain states, countries at risk from sea-level rise, and countries with indigenous peoples, and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries in which inequality is increasing," [the report] said.
But funding needed to offset the impact of climate change is lacking, the report warned, saying developing countries would need between $70 billion to $100 billion a year to implement needed measures. And efforts to reduce the effects of climate change would only have a marginal effect on reducing poverty unless "structural inequalities are addressed and needs for equity among poor and nonpoor people are met."
It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to b
Re: (Score:3)
I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a cloak hiding the proposer's socialist SJW motives.
Why are you making things up? Most of the solutions being proposed have nothing to do with socialism. By far the most popular proposal among economists is a carbon tax, which is about as non-political and pro-market as you could ask for. Make people pay for the damage they do to the environment, then let the market figure out the best way to deal with it. Other popular proposals include things like raising the fuel efficiency standards for cars, subsidizing renewable energy, increased funding for energy
it's politics, obviously (Score:3)
No, the river course was changed by glacial melting and retreat.
The cause of that was clearly warming.
The cause of that is still open for debate. Was it exacerbated or caused by human activity - your answer, and the certainty with which you issue it depends on whether you're a member of the AGW secular religion.
Re: (Score:2)
your answer, and the certainty with which you issue it depends on whether you're a member of the AGW secular religion.
lol
Reversal of Chicago River (Score:2)
For the millionth time on record (Score:2)
For the millionth time on record, entities abuse the language of science to make unscientific claims to push a political agenda. The good news is this story can serve as a self assessment. If you find it remotely plausible that through science we have found evidence of this so compelling to overcome alternative explanations beyond tolerable error, then you now know you do not understand science. Metaknowledge is difficult to obtain, so this really is a uniquely valuable opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read my reasearch paper showing how I create energy from nothing, or did you just assume I'm wrong?
You cannot know this was caused by man made factors of climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Queue the idiots that put up straw men... Like you
Cue the morons who can't spell "cue." Buncha "loosers."
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmmm (Score:2)
It's going to be raining . . . sheep.
Gimme a nice MLT—mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomatoes are ripe.
Re:In 1913 (Score:4, Insightful)
And also we're now going to blame ANY climate change on mankind, even if it happened in the past, and even though the earth's climate has been constantly changing for the past 5 billion years.
Re: Prirates should stick to the oceans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any you know poster is not white, how?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too Damn Big! Ive always wanted a Brontosaurus as a pet.. I can name him Tiny!