Global Warming Predictions May Now Be a Lot Less Uncertain (wired.com) 384
An anonymous reader shares a report: Humanity must not pass a rise of 2 degrees Celsius in global temperature from pre-industrial levels, so says the Paris climate agreement. Cross that line and the global effects of climate change start looking less like a grave situation and more like a catastrophe. The frustrating bit about studying climate change is the inherent uncertainty of it all. Predicting where it's going is a matter of mashing up thousands of variables in massive, confounding systems. But today in the journal Nature, researchers claim they've reduced the uncertainty in a key metric of climate change by 60 percent, narrowing a range of potential warming from 3C to 1.2C. And that could have implications for how the international community arrives at climate goals like it did in Paris. The metric is called equilibrium climate sensitivity, but don't let the name scare you.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Safe Words (Score:5, Insightful)
not in regards to AGW. you aren't a skeptic, you're a denier.
That phrasing presupposes that the thing in question is 'true' -- which makes it really, really hard to have a rational conversation.. definitely more like a religious debate at that point.
3 in one dat (Score:3, Interesting)
Global Warming Alarmism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How long before it is deemed a punishable crime to not participate in the movement to curb anthropomorphic global warming? As an idea, it is gaining traction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Global Warming Alarmism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For shame.
One of mathematicians Computer Science can thank, Joseph Fourier, discovered the greenhouse effect... and now on this web site for computer geeks we have utter retards proclaiming the warming it can cause is all fake because they are too busy masturbating to Fox News and the like.
I'm no liberal, actually I think all TV news outlets are full of shite and agenda driven, but that doesn't make one channel better than the other. Climatologists are in general agreement, so why the fuck should anyone li
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Climatologists are in general agreement, so why the fuck should anyone listen to your rantings?
At one point, virtually all scientists believed you could create gold from iron, too. So, since almost all scientists believed such was the case, I guess it's true, isn't it? Get creating some gold, then. It's probably worth almost as much as bitcoin.....
While we're at it, Earth is the center of the universe, your eyes emit the light that you see with, California is an island, and the nucleus of an atom is an inseparable mass.
These are all ideas that were widely accepted by the majority of scientists at
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While I can quibble how you present the history of all these so-called scientific "theories" or how many "scientists" believed it I'd rather just say science is not the bible, it doesn't claim to be infallible for all time forever, missteps to knowledge will be had.
The earth is warming, we can see that in several ways from receding glaciers, sea level rise, decreased snow cover, among other things. The current theory is that the climate should be relative stable unless there is a "forcing" that makes it se
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since you sound almost rational, you do know that the sea level has been rising at a roughly constant rate since the end of the last Ice Age? So the anthropogenic signal is hard to discern in that. I agree the earth is warming, it has been warming since the last Ice Age. We don't really know if the rate of warming is unusual, but judging by HADCET, it would appear that the period since 1800 has seen temperature rises over decades that are not unusual. That is, there are several periods in that 400 year reco
Re: (Score:3)
Since you sound almost rational, you do know that the sea level has been rising at a roughly constant rate since the end of the last Ice Age?
FALSE as clearly shown by multiple independent lines of evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some anonymous coward claimed:
At one point, virtually all scientists believed you could create gold from iron, too.
At NO point did ANY scientist believe you or anyone else could create gold from iron. Ever.
You are conflating alchemy with science - just as you are conflating fossil fuel industry propaganda with scientific, evidence-based skepticism.
Every climate scientist - with the exception of a tiny handful who are paid by the likes of the Koch brothers - agrees the evidence for AGW is overwhelming. That's a fact, and no amount of handwaving or false-equivalence mongering can wish it away
Re: (Score:3)
The plain, uncomfortable truth is that the Paris Accord goal is unreachable. [...] the average global temperature is going to rise by considerably more than 2 degrees C in the next century or so, regardless of how quickly electric vehicles replace internal combustion-based transportation.
No matter whether the Paris Accord goal is reachable or not, it's still a lot better if we manage to limit the temperature rise by say, 3 degrees C, than do absolutely nothing and end-up with a rise of 4, 5, or even 6 C.
Re: (Score:2)
fred6666 objected:
No matter whether the Paris Accord goal is reachable or not, it's still a lot better if we manage to limit the temperature rise by say, 3 degrees C, than do absolutely nothing and end-up with a rise of 4, 5, or even 6 C.
During the 50-100 kiloyear period over which the Permain extinction occurred, the global temperature is estimated to have risen by 10 degrees Celsius. That's not even taking into account that the event started with a snap ice age - which I suspect may have substantially added to the methane emissions problem, once the minty, fresh permafrost melted.
I've been convinced for some time now that both icecaps and runaway greenhouse events are examples of complex (what used to be known as "c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Climatologists are in general agreement
Climatologists, when making claims in academic papers and press releases, repeatedly state that their models make predictions not hypothesis. They do not make scientifically provable or disprovable statements. Climatologists are not doing science when making predictive claims. Science also is not bound by or influenced by "general agreement". All scientific advancements are done by going against the status quo by refuting it or expanding upon it.
So here it is: climatologists are not engaging in science and
Re:Global Warming Alarmism (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps, but the assessment of the climate change movement as a religion predates Trump's Presidency by at least a decade. Maybe two.
Re: (Score:2)
...the climate change movement as a religion predates Trump's Presidency...
Yes, but "Global Warming is a Chinese Hoax" is just as faith-biased as "Global Warming Will Kill Us All."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Global Warming Will Kill Us All." Is probably a lot more likely than most climate scientists would like it to be - as unfortunately, the most accurate Climate Models tend to be the most pessimistic (I would love to be wrong in this)!
https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
"Global warming’s worst-case projections look increasingly likely, according to a new study that tested the predictive power of climate models against observations of how the atmosphere is actually behaving.
The paper, published on Wednes
Re:Global Warming Alarmism (Score:5, Insightful)
"Global Warming Will Kill Us All." Is probably a lot more likely than most climate scientists would like it to be - as unfortunately, the most accurate Climate Models tend to be the most pessimistic
Even a 20 Celsius rise wouldn't kill us all. Those of us still alive would only be living closer to the poles or higher in the mountains.
The question is what is the cost of the warming. And how does that compare to the cost of reducing our greenhouse CO2 emissions. Altough it's still debatable, the general consensus is that it's cheaper to act now to reduce our emissions (especially in high per-capita emission countries such as the USA, Australia and Arab gulf states).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Probably unfair to blame everything on Trump...
Even scarier than Trump, is the number of people who still support him.
Pity Elizabeth Warren wasn't a candidate. She was probably too incisive, focussed on reality, and ethical, to be a viable Presidential candidate!!!
Read Karl Popper (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Read Karl Popper (Score:5, Insightful)
Lest there be any misunderstanding, the fact that science deals in disprovable hypotheses should not be used to infer that science is somehow weak. Rather, it limits the kinds of questions that one can address with science.
When a scientist makes a claim that is backed up with evidence, another scientist must have a way to prove that it is wrong. For example, "God exists" is not a scientific statement because there is no way to prove that it is wrong.
That being said, there are many theories and laws in science that have such overwhelming evidence, collected over many years, that they are often sloppily referred to as "settled" even though they never really are. Thermodynamics is arguably the best example of this.
Re:Read Karl Popper (Score:4, Informative)
Evidence is not the key point of the scientific method. Neither is "overwhelming" evidence.
The trick is a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement. Specifically:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean a hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that a hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
Translation into plain english:
1) tell me what would change your mind;
2) tell me why those if the things that would change your mind aren’t there, the only explanation left is AGW.
Showing me the evidence of a million white swans doesn't overwhelmingly prove there are no black swans. Looking really hard for black swans, and failing to find them, is what a scientist would show as support for their hypothesis.
Re: (Score:3)
Disprovability is sort of a newish idea. Falsifiability was a concept that gained ground only in the 20th centure. But we still had science before the 20th century!
Falsifiability is also often misunderstood. We have great swaths of science that depend upon one theory more closely matching the evidence than another theory. Quite a lot of science depends upon averages. What we see after having thousands of measurements. No single experiment with a different outcome will disprove the average. Thus it relies
Re: (Score:3)
People who push "settled science" are misinformed about what science actually is.
The "science is settled" isn't about "theory as truth" it's about "stop wasting our time with stupid questions that we have already answered 50 times". It's about unqualified people who think the actual experts have never considered the sun, clouds, or the ocean.
Really, it's about "stop wasting our time with your stupidity, and let us get some work done".
Uh huh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The only way to tell if this is real is to wait, take the measurement, and compare it with prior prediction. That's science. Everything else is speculation.
Is short-term weather forecast not a science? Or does it only work when looking backwards? Prediction of climate is as much science as orbital mechanics predicting where the moon will be. Albeit more complex, and with more uncertainty.
Sometimes you can't just wait. When the measurement can only be taken after catastrophic change has happened? What then?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Science is based on testable predictions. Until we find out that global warming predictions are correct it is not proven science.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a time when that was a valid position - but the predictions made 30,50,80 years ago have been proven correct well within their error bars. So what now? At what point do we stop saying "okay, you've been right so far, but there's no evidence that you'll continue to be right"? There's no way to prove with 100% certainty that predictions made today will be accurate except to wait and see. But the science has made accurate predictions so far, and the opposition is just people saying "I don't believe it". All the "unsettled science " is in the area of hammering out the exact details - narrowing the error bars so we have a better idea of exactly what we'll be facing, beyond "major problem" - the dominant forces and trends are all behaving as predicted.
The only area for doubt is whether some as-yet undiscovered side effect might re-stabilize things - but there's no evidence to suggest such a thing exists, so gambling the fate of our civilization on finding one would have to be done entirely on blind faith.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"predictions made 30,50,80 years ago have been proven correct well within their error bars."
Which predictions are those? That we'd see the end of winter in the UK? That the glaciers in the Alps would all melt? That we'd see more and more hurricanes? That whole islands would disappear? That New York City would be underwater? That people would be fleeing from climate catastrophes and out-stripping our ability to feed them?
Tell us another one.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I find the science interesting but I'm more than a bit put off by the shrill tone of everyone involved.
Ain't that the truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Is short-term weather forecast not a science?
Yes, it is a science. It makes predictions, then we see if those predictions were accurate.
Or does it only work when looking backwards?
Well, that's the part where we see if the predictions were accurate. So yes, sort of?
Prediction of climate is as much science as orbital mechanics predicting where the moon will be.
Right. Orbital mechanics was accepted when the observations ended up matching the predictions.
Sometimes you can't just wait. When the measurement can only be taken after catastrophic change has happened? What then?
Hopefully we decided to play the odds and prepare for the outcome that was 98% likely.
Remember, science doesn't prove anything. Proofs are for mathematicians. Climate Change is "less proven" than gravity because we've conducted thousands of controlled experiments confirming the details of gravity. We don't have a bunch of extra Earths lying around, so it's much more difficult to conduct controlled experiments that would confirm details and help improve the precision of the models and predictions.
Of course, you still have to be either a complete idiot or a selfish asshole to think that Climate Change is a hoax and bet your grandkid's existence on that 2% chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Scaring (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought the entire point of Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change was to scare us? And that any attempt to minimize the fear was being a denier of settled science?
Re:Scaring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Same concept applies t
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the entire point of Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change was to scare us? And that any attempt to minimize the fear was being a denier of settled science?
The point is to have a reason to take away everyones rights and to exterminate all the poor people
Re: (Score:3)
I thought the entire point of Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change was to scare us? And that any attempt to minimize the fear was being a denier of settled science?
The point is to have a reason to take away everyones rights and to exterminate all the poor people
If it were about CO2/warming/climate change, we'd be allowed to build nuclear power plants, and the BANANAS* wouldn't be shutting down the existing ones. That's proof that they don''t believe in CO2/whatever. Not really. If they did, their priorities would be ... somewhat different.
* Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
Re: (Score:3)
Surely the entire point of Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change is to scare us (away from dealing with climate change), if only because you made the term up.
The point of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is to measure and describe that portion of observe change that might attributed to manmade greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2 from burning fuels and methane from agricultural practices.
Whether you find that scary or not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you are talking about cute anime girls, you probably mean "anthropogenic".
Bus now, I wonder what Japan came up with to represent global warming. They tend to turn everything into cute anime girls.
Re: (Score:2)
They have this device that takes care of cows humanely and has no environmental impact. It doesn't even require a bullet!
Re:Scaring (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid talking point. You don't find spontaneous generation in med textbooks because the idea was replaced with a better one. When climate change denialists have some superior science, call us. Until then you're as big a tool as anti-vaxxers, who also refuse to listen to "experts", because reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
But, but...Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!
Quote from a climate scientist (Score:2)
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology climate scientist Reto Knutti [responded], “What's the chance of something fundamentally being wrong in our models?” he asks. “Is that really less than 1 percent? I would argue there's more than a one in a hundred chance that something has been forgotten in all of the models, just because our understanding is incomplete.”
Of course, he's Swiss, so he's biased.....the weather's so cold up there he wants global warming!
Slow news day? (Score:2)
But the Models Say... (Score:2, Insightful)
Pierre Gallois
Re:But the Models Say... (Score:5, Funny)
Last time I heard a model talking about climate change, it was Kylie Jenner - and she's mainly concerned at what global warming might do to her hair and skin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Garbage in, garbage out.
Re:But the Models Say... (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it."
Pierre Gallois
"I don't understand X, and it's really inconveniently for me to believe X, therefore I believe it's impossible for anyone to understand X."
-pipingguy (paraphrasing)
Re: (Score:2)
And of course the way you know tomfoolery went into the the computer in this case is that you don't like the answer that came out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're fine if they provide a paper audit trail.
Re:But the Models Say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Computer modeling has achieved many things for humanity. It has helped us to build bridges that can survive earthquakes, planes that don't fall out of the sky, space probes that can travel to distant planets with less fuel, sports arenas that can be evacuated quickly in an emergency, and so on. All of these efforts allowed the behavior of an object or system to be predicted in advance.
Other kinds of modeling are more difficult, but no less useful or important. Climate modeling is one such endeavor. And no good scientist uses a model to predict the future unless s/he has some confidence that it makes predictions with reasonable accuracy. Often that confidence is acquired by seeing whether the model can predict the past by using the more distant past.
It is foolish to dismiss a computer model just because it is a computer model.
Ummm.... (Score:3)
Except the Paris accords do nothing to avoid the 2 degrees change. All agreed emissions reductions will still exceed 2 degrees. It did not nothing accept allow a great photo-op for politicians who can pretend they did something.
How much more unambiguous can you get? (Score:2)
It's right there in the name.
It's called "global warming", not "global sometimes-hot-sometimes-not".
climate scientists vs slashdot anonymous coward (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad things will happen at just a couple of degrees warmer. Rain patterns will change, pests like mosquitoes will move, coastal cities will flood. No one talks about the bad things at 6C because they don't want to sound like crazy alarmists.
You've got the base premise wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
The vast majority of anonymous cowards flooding in throves every thread about climate change are not concerned citizens with opposing views and/or healthy skepticism.
They are part of a concerted, deliberate, organized campain to destroy the public's confidence in science, to paint scientists as an evil community with ulterior motives, to destroy the reputation of all climate scientists.
All for one purpose, and one purpose only: To destroy, or at least delay significantly, all efforts to effect political, so
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wouldn't this be an opportunity for the admins of slashot to keep track of the IP's of these posters and do some basic investigations into who is posting this crap?
Wouldn't exposing an astro-turfing industry both catapult them into fame as well as clean up and improve the quality of their main product? They're pretty easy to identify, any coward downvoted into oblivion in a climate change article. You'd expect the pros to run through a variety of VPN services. And while the slashdot admins don't have war
Re: (Score:3)
Global temperature has risen more than 12 fahrenheit since the ice age. Hunter-gatherers didn't have cars or coal power plants.
Everything was fine up till now, so everything will always be fine, forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Global temperature has risen more than 12 fahrenheit since the ice age. Hunter-gatherers didn't have cars or coal power plants.
Everything was fine up till now, so everything will always be fine, forever.
Thats not what I said. I merely made a note that the long-term temperature trend before human action is already upwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats not what I said. I merely made a note that the long-term temperature trend before human action is already upwards.
A very gradual change over thousands of years is not what the concern is - the concern is a sudden increase in the rate of warming.
It's kind of like telling someone not to worry that their house is on fire, because it's July and the weather has been getting hotter for months.
Re: (Score:3)
Over many thousands of years, causing huge changes that were difficult to cope with.
It will be bad when that happens very quickly and to civilisations rather than nomadic tribes.
OK, now I'm scared. (Score:3)
"The metric is called equilibrium climate sensitivity, but don't let the name scare you."
Why would say that, unless something scary is going on? What if the name of the site was "Slashdot, news for nerds, but don't let that scare you"? What if you went to a restaurant, and after running down the specials, the waiter said, "but don't let the name scare you"? Is there any chance you'd order that dish?
Bullshit. Actually warming is *worse* than models (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually pretty significant (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine that it's your job to tell the future. An amazing amount of money, and possibly lives depend on your forecast. Your tools are math and temperature measurements.
That's the situation that climate scientists find themselves in. I used to do some comparatively very simple modeling of satellite electronics to show that system data integrity and uptime would be satisfactory in the midst of cosmic radiation - and in the whole field of reliability and radiation effects, there's an absurd amount of handwaving and slop. I was regularly dealing with uncertainty on the order of 10x-100x in the error rates of some components. Thankfully, in most cases you can afford to apply tons of margin to your estimate to cover all of those unknowns.
Climate scientists have it much harder. The analysis is far more complex and much more sensitive - there's almost no room for error. The measurements are imperfect, the models are incomplete, and uncertainty abounds. However, the trend is there. What are we going to do, bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best?
Instead, it seems like we should listen to the smartest people in the world on this topic, who have devoted their lives to it. We should applaud the advances like this, which make incremental progress towards a better understanding. That same process of incremental advancement of human knowledge has given us the most advanced civilization in human history.
Most importantly, we should especially celebrate this kind of advance, which reduces uncertainty in the forecast, because that's the real key to reducing the political hysteria, and to bringing sanity into the discussion.
Climate scientists are just normal people. They aren't infallible. They also aren't corrupt psychopaths. They have an impossible job in front of them. And in the absence of a crystal ball, they are the very best resource we have available for figuring out what the hell we should do about all this.
We would all do better to listen to what they are actually saying, and stop reflexively misrepresenting them to suit our preconceptions.
Re:This is actually pretty significant (Score:5, Interesting)
Climate scientists are just normal people. They aren't infallible. They also aren't corrupt psychopaths. They have an impossible job in front of them. And in the absence of a crystal ball, they are the very best resource we have available for figuring out what the hell we should do about all this.
Wise words, and I almost totally agree, except for the bit I highlighted.
They may be the best people to tell us what is happening, and what is likely to happen given future emission scenarios, but I'm not so sure they're any more capable of figuring out what the hell we should do than any of the rest of us. They're experts on climate, and all that entails, not politics, psychology, sociology, or various engineering disciplines.
The problem is global and extremely complex (barring 'simple' solutions that would harm society nearly as much as some of the worst case predictions would) and hence requires a global, as in requires 'buy-in' from most people, and multi-part solution. It's made more complex still because of the fact that while doing nothing will result in unpleasant consequences for most of us doing 'something' will also result in unpleasant consequences for some of us. The climate guys can only really tell us some of those consequences - the others are dependent on political, social and financial factors.
That small 'correction' aside, great post!
Re: (Score:2)
The climate guys can only really tell us some of those consequences - the others are dependent on political, social and financial factors.
That small 'correction' aside, great post!
Fair enough, and I agree with you on that point. It's not the job of the climate scientists to fix things, just to tell us honestly how bad things seem to be, while providing all the caveats about uncertainty and probabilities and ways to be wrong. Overall, I think they are doing pretty damned well there and it's a shame that there is so much shooting of the messengers on this topic.
Yeah whatever (Score:2)
Tell it to the people who live in the midwest up to the northen parts of the country in a "deep freeze". Now tell me how Global warming is such a dire catasraphe? PLUEASEEEE!
Here is the solution to it. If we took ALL the global warming alarmists and killed them all - all the CO2 they had been releasing would take care of global warming once and for all.
translation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sir, that wasn't your daughter. It was a porn star that you paid to dress up like your daughter.
Re:Climate changes. It always has. (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone wants to live in an unchanging climate, go to a tropical island along the equator.
The people of Dominica, Barbuda and Puerto Rico would like to have some words with you. Angry, 4-letter words about what you can do to yourself, and if you'd like to trade places with them, I'd bet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Those are all solidly tropical islands relatively close to the equator. The equator only actually passes through a small handful of islands: Sao Tome and Principe, Kiribati, Indonesia and the Maldives. I recommend that all climate conspiracy theorists relocate to the Maldives, directly on the equator for maximum safety.
Re:Climate changes. It always has. (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is heating up, we will survive
Not without a lot of adjustments. Agriculture will have to change. Many places will become arid. Populations will move and of course there are people already where they want to move so expect lots and lots of wars.
Political systems and economic systems will be put under immense strains - even ditched.
So, yes, humanity will survive but not without some incredible changes.
Let's put it this way: the American way of life will disappear because it is unsustainable. The free market capitalism that many of us worship will be our end.
But that's in a couple of generations. None of us will be alive to see it. So, who cares about our grandchildren's generation, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Good news (Or bad news, for the Malthusians out there). Humanity tends to make incredible changes on a daily basis. In fact in just the last hundred years, we've went from horse and buggy and blood letting to space travel, microprocessors, air conditioning, robotics, and biotechnology.
The free market capitalism that spawned these things is not "our end". In fact it's the very thing that has propelled us towards the fantastic future
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the greatest advances, and certainly some of the most rapid have happened during the world wars and the Cold War that followed.
You know, where some of the largest governments in the world poured resources into R&D in a way that is anything but capitalist.
Some of the other breakthroughs arose from universities - that were publicly funded. The drive towards short term profit has seen a number of companies that used to see the long term profit of maintaining R&D divisions closing those down, re
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we may survive - but necessarily in ways we would like.
In a hundred years there may be up to 10,000 humans in a precarious existence in scattered bands around the planet, with the oceans practically devoid of life...
Re: (Score:2)
arrrghhhhhhhhhh...........
"but necessarily in ways we would like"
should have been
"but not necessarily in ways we would like"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Climate changes. It always has. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is it about any criticism of capitalism that is immediately conflated with extreme socialism?
Extremes of both socialism and capitalism are 'bad'* and have failure modes that are remarkably similar. Just as extremes of either right or left wing political parties start to resemble each other. The countries with the highest standards of living for the most people by a number of metrics (education, lifespan, social mobility, lowest delta between poorest and wealthiest) tend to have limited and well-regulated capitalism along with limited and well-regulated social policies.
*Yeah, my version of 'bad' may differ from yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I feel much better, an AC has explained it all! An AC that clearly doesn't care about drinking or eating.
Not a major issue? (Score:2)
Rapid climate change == mass extinctions (Score:3)
Always has. Look at any mass extinction event, the environment changed too fast for life to adapt to it.
People have always gotten cancer - so there's no reason for you not to smoke 8 packs a day in asbestos-wrapped cigarettes.
People have always died in car accidents - so there's no reason for you not to drive 120 mph without a seatbelt, after drinking a bottle of gin.
Denialists are dipshits with atrocious logic.
Re: (Score:3)
People have always gotten cancer - so there's no reason for you not to smoke 8 packs a day in asbestos-wrapped cigarettes.
People have always died in car accidents - so there's no reason for you not to drive 120 mph without a seatbelt, after drinking a bottle of gin.
And if people ignored those massive warnings, then the population of the Earth would be smaller, and we'd be worrying less about carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses and how the population is unsustainable. Just saying.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The questions never been if we'll survive. Homo sapiens has survived several ice ages without modern technology. 'We'll' survive if by 'we' you mean that the genome of the species will live on, we're very adaptive. The question is at what cost? The climate heating up affects global stability by affecting economies and more importantly the global food production. Europe right now - as someone living here - is quite stirred up by the refugee crisis from the middle-east
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So much wrong with all this, but I'll just hit the high points.
Increasing heat waves and droughts as well as sea level rise will halt agriculture near the equator
No it won't. This is why the rhetoric matters, and why "warmest year on record" is such utterly useless nonsense. One average temperature number for an entire planet bathed in gigatons of fluids is absurd to the point of insanity. Those fluids move energy. Lots of energy. The atmosphere and the oceans are both giant energy conveyors [slashdot.org]. "Global warming" does not mean everywhere on Earth gets uniformly warmer by some number. That's why you're
Re: (Score:3)
I never claimed that. But it's clear at this point that continued warming will negatively affect the amount of arable land and food output in regions like sub-saharan Africa that are already suffering from shortages of quality land. Further up north some places will actually see an increase in arable land, but it's clear that for a chunk of the poorest people in the world the situation will get even worse increasing inst
Re: (Score:2)
*facepalm*
First of all get your xenophobic talking points correct. I'm a Finn. The 'rape capital' -card is thrown about regarding Sweden, and is not eve [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is the key problem in this "debate." Since it's going to affect someone else, even if it's their own grandchildren, nobody gives a fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Made a lot of assumptions there, buddy.
Anyway your moral absolutism doesn't wash. You don't have to give up everything that is potentially bad for the environment, to atleast start to consider your impact, and improve it. Your straw-man is transparent.
Re: (Score:2)
not after they're extinct they won't.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you so sure the human race shouldn't go extinct?
Humans are the most destructive, dangerous species to themselves and every other species on the planet, IMO, we deserve to die out!
To paraphrase the late George Carlin:
The Earth will be fine, it just has a cold, once it's "immune system" purges the "human" infection, the earth will heal itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are people dumb enough to believe this.
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf? Is it global warming or climate change? It's so freaking cold here in Florida I wonder where they're taking temperature readings, maybe in their rectums? Boiling over the scam hasn't taken effect? Remember the coming ice age in the 1970's? All scare tactics no solutions just send more money!
Global Warming leads to more extreme weather conditions. This means while the mean temperature of the planet increases, some parts will get a lot hotter and other parts a lot colder.
I've added emphasis in the quotes
https://www.livescience.com/37... [livescience.com] .
[...]
Extreme weather is another effect of global warming. While experiencing some of the hottest summers on record , much of the United States has also been experiencing colder-than-normal winters
Changes in climate can cause the polar jet stream — the b