Climate Change Will Have Dire Consequences For US, Federal Report Concludes (cnn.com) 314
A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts on the health and economy of the country. From a report: The federally mandated study was released by the Trump administration on Friday, at a time when many Americans are on a long holiday weekend, distracted by family and shopping. Coming from the US Global Change Research Program, a team of 13 federal agencies, the Fourth National Climate Assessment was put together with the help of 1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists. It's the second of two volumes. The first, released in November 2017, concluded that there is "no convincing alternative explanation" for the changing climate other than "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases."
The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax. On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century. But the science explained in these and other federal government reports is clear: Climate change is not disproved by the extreme weather of one day or a week; it's demonstrated by long-term trends. Humans are living with the warmest temperatures in modern history. Even if the best-case scenario were to happen and greenhouse gas emissions were to drop to nothing, the world is on track to warm 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit. As of now, not a single G20 country is meeting climate targets, research shows.
The costs of climate change could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to the report. The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat. Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield. Heat stress could cause average dairy production to fall between 0.60% and 1.35% over the next 12 years -- having already cost the industry $1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010. Further reading: Climate Change Will Cost US Economy Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, Government Says in Sweeping Report (Reuters); Climate Change 'Will Inflict Substantial Damages on US Lives' (The Guardian); Climate Change Is Already Hurting U.S. Communities, Federal Report Says (NPR); Major Trump Administration Climate Report Says Damages Are 'Intensifying Across the Country' (The Washington Post); and Climate Impacts Grow, But U.S. Can Adapt, Says New Report (National Geographic).
The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax. On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century. But the science explained in these and other federal government reports is clear: Climate change is not disproved by the extreme weather of one day or a week; it's demonstrated by long-term trends. Humans are living with the warmest temperatures in modern history. Even if the best-case scenario were to happen and greenhouse gas emissions were to drop to nothing, the world is on track to warm 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit. As of now, not a single G20 country is meeting climate targets, research shows.
The costs of climate change could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to the report. The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat. Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield. Heat stress could cause average dairy production to fall between 0.60% and 1.35% over the next 12 years -- having already cost the industry $1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010. Further reading: Climate Change Will Cost US Economy Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, Government Says in Sweeping Report (Reuters); Climate Change 'Will Inflict Substantial Damages on US Lives' (The Guardian); Climate Change Is Already Hurting U.S. Communities, Federal Report Says (NPR); Major Trump Administration Climate Report Says Damages Are 'Intensifying Across the Country' (The Washington Post); and Climate Impacts Grow, But U.S. Can Adapt, Says New Report (National Geographic).
The deceipt of big numbers over large time spans.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat.
500 * 10^6 hours / 81 years = 6.173 * 10^6 hours/year
That's 6.173 * 10^6 / 52 = 1.187 * 10^5 hours/week.
Given 10 * 10^6 working age adults in the Southeast, that's...
0.012 hours per week per worker. Not a hell of a lot.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To expand on that, if the median household income in the Southeast is around $50,000 [fool.com], and there are typically 1.4 workers per household [aei.org], that would be about $18 per hour, on average. Assuming you lose 0.012 hours per week, that would be about 0.6 hours per year of work (assuming 2 weeks vacation).
So if the cost of climate change abatement is more than ($18 * 0.6) about $11 per year per worker, it is actually an economic loser to try to address it. Better to "accept the loss" of 0.012 hours per week, than
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Where does it say that? (I'm not challenging you, just curious.)
Re: (Score:2)
https://nca2018.globalchange.g... [globalchange.gov]
Guess what? (Score:3)
Once again... (Score:4, Insightful)
... our pinhead politicians fail to understand the difference between climate and this afternoon's weather.
If only they have someone on staff who passed high school science instead of another hack whose specialty is oppo research.
Here's a well reasoned argument (Score:5, Funny)
Irrelevant (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Try convincing the large population of earth living in cold climates that a gradual 2C warming is a disaster. You'll definitely get a lot of sympathy for
Amazon... (Score:2)
Amazon gets large plot of land on Long Island.
I guess Bezos plus minions care less about sea level rising, and hurricanes etc.
when science bleeds into speculative fiction (Score:2, Insightful)
The following is not science:
Re: (Score:2)
s/either/neither
Re: (Score:2)
My faith in the scientific model of dire anthropogenic climate change started at about 30% in 1980, and has increased by about 10% per decade since.
In any other area of science, this would be regarded as a rapid confidence ramp with respect to a wicked question of science, but stakes are very high with the planet hanging in the balance, so double standard.
My faith in the dire economic projections is not ramping at anywhere near that rate. It's mostly just a giant FUD sundae, and neither the rigors of tradit
Re: (Score:2)
exactly when such a reliable decree comes down the pike remains open to debate
Actually there is no debate, we know this since the 1900s and movements warn about it since the 1970s.
It's worth observing (Score:5, Interesting)
That a recent study conducted on beliefs [theguardian.com] showed that most people who believed global warming was a hoax also believed in the New World Order, ancient aliens, that vaccines caused autism, that JFK was murdered by his own government and/or that their government was trying to replace them with muslims.
I'm honestly curious why we even bother to discuss things, in that case. I have no objection to you believing whatever you like, but as people like that most certainly DO object to me holding to my views, I see no benefit in bothering to debate things. No, I don't hold those conspiracy theorists in high esteem, but why should that bother them? If they were secure in their views, it would be irrelevant.
Does it really cause that much distress to anyone if we use solar rather than coal for power plants? You get exactly the same amount of power, or maybe more with solar these days. How is that interfering with your lifestyle? Does it really cause a problem to argue that Brazil and Indonesia should stop producing cash crops and replant rainforest? Wow, a few products you weren't even buying anyway go up in price by all of five cents. The agony. Let me see if I can shed a tear... wait... wait... sorry, no.
For crying out loud, it has bugger all impact on anyone here. Not even your 401K will be affected, since the stock brokers will all transfer together, causing the stocks they switch to to skyrocket in price. Ok, you might actually make quite a lot of money on that.
That's it. That's all the affect YOU will ever notice. You becoming a little bit richer, in a few years.
I mean. The tragedy of having more money to spend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's worth observing (Score:5, Informative)
We already have. More than 50% of the energy in Britain comes from renewables, about a fifth in the US. If we move the subsidies propping up coal to solar, we could have 100% generated by renewables within three Presidential terms. It's not difficult. Trump's removal of legitimate subsidies for an emergent technology in order to prop up coal will slow down the switch from coal to solar. Slow, not stop. It hasn't stopped, despite Trump's efforts to bankrupt the industry and finance a bankrupt, obsolete alternative.
It's that simple.
Solar is not difficult to mass produce and, with adequate funding to produce isotopically pure silicon (which we can now mass produce) along with the other mass-producible improvements to the energy output, the same number of panels produced can produce double the energy. Simple arithmetic would suggest you then need less than half the solar panels. (Lower transmission loss through fewer connections and less wiring.)
Since most people want solar heating, not solar electricity, to the home, it's trivial to have the government provide incentives to mass produce solar heaters (which don't require rare earths) and to encourage installation of those where they'd be of better value to the consumer, so as to conserve resources.
Reversing the taxes placed on solar power in Nevada and a few other States, mandating compensation, requiring all new homes have direct solar heaters or solar panels installed as part of the Federal building codes, and providing strong incentives to install (such as providing exactly the same subsidies to those selling solar energy to the grid as are currently provided to coal-fired power stations) would solve many of the problems.
I'm a fan of nuclear done right (waste contains radioisotopes that can be used to produce energy, so use them, sodium reactors can't have a meltdown, have superior efficiency and we have actually built those, there's no need to cut corners to save on costs since a good working reactor is cheaper than geoengineering by many orders of magnitude giving us plenty of margin). It takes ten years to build a reactor, although you can probably increase the parallelism to some extent.
If you go all-out on solar, and build a nuclear reactor in each State, then in ten years you should have ample power to completely eliminate fossil fuel.
I'd go further and build in each State the infrastructure and housing likely required for a fusion reactor, which I'd expect to be ready for construction in about ten years. If it isn't, you've housing that's more than adequate to house a fission reactor. Indeed, it should be of vastly superior grade. So, if fusion isn't ready, just build another fission reactor in each State. The modifications needed should be minor, if there are any at all. It's just a shell with easily maintained piping, generator and substation. (Since the subsidies for fossil fuel amount to $20 trillion a year, we can afford to go Manhattan Project on fusion for a ten year spree. If it can be solved at all, that should be more than sufficient.)
So in the worst case scenario, in ten years solar and nuclear are major players, with wind and geothermal next, and in twenty years solar and all forms of nuclear (regardless of whether that's just fission or not) have doubled capacity. That's 2030 and 2040 respectively.
Let's take that worst-case. We've doubled the energy from solar by capacity and again by efficiency. So, we're currently at 50 gigawatts, so that's 200 gigawatts. We subtract the 50 we currently have, since we're only looking at new capacity. 150 gigawatts. Since the US government official figures say that the current output is actually 50 terawatt hours, I am unsure exactly how the numbers are reached. But if we accept that both numbers are valid, then we end up with 200 terawatt hours of power, or 150 terawatt hours of increase.
The state of the art sodium reactors are 880 megawatts per reactor, which is 21120 megawatt hours per reactor. The best reactors out there have an output of 13
Re: (Score:2)
Making ad hominen [wikipedia.org] attacks on people who don't agree with you makes your side look less likely to be correct, not more likely. The natural assumption being that if all you can come up as an argument is to say "those guys who disagree with me are a bunch of idiots!", which proves precisely nothing about what you are actually arguing for/against, then you must not have any actual sound argument to provide for your side.
Nobody cares if you or anyone else who wants to uses solar instead of coal power. What they
Re: (Score:3)
it'd be wiser to not do anything now to slow down economic growth, but instead spend resources on remediation
Slow down, cowboy, that's a claim that requires evidence. The trillion dollar question, right now, is exactly the one you glibly answer: Which will cause the most economic impact, continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and then paying the economic cost of living with the effects, or paying the economic cost of replacing our energy infrastructure?
This report attempts to provide an answer to one part of that question, namely, what will be the cost of simply living on a hotter planet. And i
Hardly news (Score:2)
it's just a shame that the consequences of climate change can't be confined to the countries, or better yet the people. who deny and ignore the problem. Maybe we could convince them all to move to Florida (and the Maldives for non-American denialists?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Survival of the fittest baby! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's expensive.
The costs of pollution outweigh the illusionary "savings" that you reap by not preventing or cleaning up the pollution.
Nobody gives a fuck about what's "natural." We care about the consequences to us. Comets colliding with the earth would be natural too, but if we saw one coming in, people would desperately want to Do Something about it, to minimize the damage. Fuck nature.
Bzzt. You can be responsible to yourself, as well as other humans too. No mysticism, supernatural belief or paranormalism phenomenon are needed. All you need is the the plain hard reality of not wanting people to get away with doing bad things to other, innocent, unconsenting people. Even if you don't believe in Thor or Jehova or Quetzalcoatl, you would have reason to object to me dumping sewage into your home. And if you were inclined to use such language, you might even say I was "morally culpable" for the sewage that I unilaterally chose to put into your home.
Re: (Score:2)
If humanity is just the product of random evolutionary changes, whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural." We are not disrupting the natural flow of the universe no matter WHAT we do!
So if someone burns down your house, assaults your mother, and dumps plutonium into the town water supply, that's the "natural flow of the universe?"
Humans can make choices. It is wise for us to make choices that are in our collective interest as a species if we are going to survive. We are perfectly capable of driving ourselves to extinction if we don't.
Re: (Score:2)
If humanity is just the product of random evolutionary changes, whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural." We are not disrupting the natural flow of the universe no matter WHAT we do! So, we need to get over worrying about this whole, "Climate change" thing. It's not as if we are somehow morally culpable to anyone. So... why should we really care?
(Unless, of course, we are morally culpable for our stewardship of the planet. But that would presuppose some higher being to which we are morally culpable - which is not scientific, and so, CANNOT be true. So, let's just get over ourselves a bit and live life!)
The issue isn't about anything moral or bullshit like that. The issue is can our modern worldwide civilization survive the changes that global warming/climate change will cause. If we want to preserve this civilization we need to do something about that. Humans won't go extinct but we might have a massive collapse of population and have civilization fall back to a 19th or even 18th century level just because there won't be enough people to support the kind of civilization we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
All of these models take that and far longer (Score:5, Insightful)
These models are tested with far longer sets of data and against multiple sources of historic information e.g. tree rings, ice cores etc.
The facts are pretty clear, the climate is changing fast. It already entered a point of no return. Those are facts. Weather cycles show we should be in a cooling period but instead we are warming, so no that's not it.
There are other things besides cars/factories etc. such as the huge amount of livestock which increases methane emissions. Methane is far worse than most greenhouse gasses. There are a lot of things that need fixing to stop this disaster which is already showing its impact in droughts, wildfires and storms that are far more powerful than they should be.
Oil, gas and coal are heavily subsidized. Especially oil for which wars were fought and blood was spilled to keep its price ridiculously low. Green energy is already competitive even without government subsidies. Imagine what a pro-active push to green energy can do to the global economy... More people work in solar than in coal in the US today. There are only benefits to green policies.
Re:All of these models take that and far longer (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a great video out there [youtube.com] by Tom Heller who calls out many of my own frustrations. I personally am a big believer in the scientific method and the scientific community in general. But it would be ignorant to claim that climate science was completely apolitical and there was no fraud or misrepresentation whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3)
Specifically, the same surface data that showed significant cooling from the 1930s to 1970s and was massaged out of the record.
There is nothing massaged our of the records. And the cooling is easy to explain: SOx emissions from powerplants and cars and other transport. Perhaps you remember: we cut that down beginning in the late 1970s,
The main reason why planet is not already "dying to the heat" is: the absurd amount of increase in ship traffic and hence the astonishing amount of SOx we right now blow into
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever done any modeling, dumbass?
I have been modeling biological data for 35 years, shithead, and you an insane imbecile
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, those very models (Tree rings, Ice cores) are constantly adjusted so that they better fit surface temperature records over the last hundred years
Actually no they're not.
The first IPCC report set some of those in stone by having graphs predicting the future. Those models predicted the temperature rise to within the error bars, so far nearly 30 years into the future.
Now unless you're claiming someone went back and edited that report after the fact, "constantly adjusting" the models you have to conc
Re: (Score:3)
Those tricky scientists, constantly testing to find the weakest points of their models and improving the models so that they get better over time! Although your assertion that data was massaged out of the record is puzzling.
And sure there are problems in all areas of research like you say. But as I'm not personally an expert in climate modeling, I'm c
Re: (Score:2)
Weather cycles show we should be in a cooling period but instead we are warming, so no that's not it.
About what weather cycles are you talking?
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest sign of how climate models are inadequate is that *not a single one* has shown to predict the climate or even the trend at any level of accuracy. They are all far off from actual observations.
Here is a comparison of climate model projections to observations. They show good agreement between the two:
Climate Model Projections Compared to Observations [realclimate.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Also, there can never be more rain where they need more and less rain where they need less. Droughts and floods can only change one way. You'd think it would be possible for something to change for the better in at least one place, but no, it apparently isn't.
And it will be too warm for corn in corn areas, and too warm for soybeans farther south, but no way can the corn farmers switch and grow soybeans as it gets warmer. You'd think people might adapt, but no, apparently they can't.
Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
but no way can the corn farmers switch and grow soybeans as it gets warmer. You'd think people might adapt, but no, apparently they can't.
Dude, do you even understand farming? Soils VARY! A soil good for corn isn't necessarily one that's good for Rice or whatever.
Here in Illinois we have BOTH corn and beans, and if it's too warm to grow one, it'll be too warm to grow the other too. It's not about adaption, there are physical limits to what can be grown. and it's not just heat, it's about rain, humidity, soil composition, local parasites, local pollinators, drainage, etc etc.
So people like you saying, "well they can just start growing oran
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I know. It's impossible for anyone to ever do anything different in response to any changes in climate or weather. Too bad. If only people could adapt in some way, then we wouldn't all be doooooomed.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, people can do different things, but realize that warm weather crops might not grow well int he midwest even if it is warmer. (and most likely drier) And where will you go to get the massive amounts of corn and soybeans. Lower yields or fewer food animals will lead to higher prices.
It's disruptive and will cause problems, that can't be shrugged off with "adapt". Even small changes can cause major socio-economic disruption. Examples? Boll Weevil, Dust bowl. Little Ice Age.
And in the past climatic cha
Re: (Score:2)
It's disruptive
But forcing everyone to use non-carbon energy isn't disruptive?
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing? No one is forcing anyone. There's encouragement but not forcing.
Fossil fuels are a FINITE resource and they're used for things other than fuels. We need to be making the amount left, last as long as we can. Non-carbon energy is one of the ways we will do that.
Yes, it will be disruptive, but it's positive disruption that actually improves things in the long term. Really, do you want the resource wars of Fallout to become reality? Do you? No?
Then quit your "no-ones-going-to-tell-me-what-to-do-
Re: (Score:2)
Really, do you want the resource wars of Fallout to become reality?
You seem to be making up stories and deciding to believe them. I guess it's emotionally satisfying?
Believing stories that I know are made up is harder for me. But if I wanted to, why wouldn't I make up a story where everything turns out fine, and decide to believe that? It's more consistent with how things have gone the last 500 years or so.
Re: (Score:2)
But forcing everyone to use non-carbon energy isn't disruptive? ... and will always be the case.
No it is not. The power comes out of the power plug in your wall
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
when we started to have geography in school, around 6th or 7th grade, one of the first bigger topics was development aid and how the first world fails to help the third and fourth world to develop (That was around 1980/1982). One prime example was that a group of "scientists" and "development helpers" decided that they found a perfect spot to grow peanuts in some remote starving african area. Everything was perfect: altitude, temperature span, average rain fall. The project was a disaster and pinnacle
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like someone who doesn't know a thing about it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure you say the same thing about politicians, too! Unless you have a law degree and a decade or more of experience, you have NO RIGHT to criticize any politician. Logic and reason be damned, it's all about the degrees a person has achieved. Einstein was spot-on [blogspot.com] when he responded to the 100 authors opposed to him; it would only take one to prove him wrong, there is no "strength in numbers".
And as far as climate science goes, 95% of the models say that the data is wrong [drroyspencer.com]; however, as Richard Feynman [presentationzen.com]
Re:Nothing stays the same (Score:4, Informative)
Unless you can show us your credentials to be making authoritative statements about climate science (a PhD in it from an accredited University will do), you need to shut the fuck up about things you know NOTHING about.
I'm sure you say the same thing about politicians, too! Unless you have a law degree and a decade or more of experience, you have NO RIGHT to criticize any politician.
False equivalence. I don't agree with Rick Schumann's tone, but he's in the right here.
Scientists and politicians have a different covenant. Scientists observe the universe and present explanations for what they see. Politicians present their proposals to an electorate and seek a mandate for carrying them out. You don't vote on science. You do vote on public policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, your sig shows that your sources are probably not unbiased since you're basically saying "anyone who wants stronger regulations on business, some kind of nationalized healthcare and gun regulation is a Nazi!" You're basically saying "Liberals are Nazi's Nyah nyah nyah"
Well the Nazi's were also Kinder, Küche, Kirche, which describes your average evangelical as well.
But getting back to your links, D Roy Spencer's book was published by Encounter books:
Encounter Books is an American conservati
Re:Nothing stays the same (Score:4, Informative)
The first graph shows temperatures rising from 1895 to 1943.
The second graph shows temperatures rising from 1957 to 2005.
Conclusion: Temperatures are rising, no surprise there. The graphs are similar because ever since the industrial revolution, global average temperatures have been rising.
I don't know why you or this "Willis Eschenbach" would think that 1895-1943 is a "Natural" period, unaffected by CO2 emissions. Well I do, actually. You're climate-trolling, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Willis Eisenbach? He's not a "climate scientist" His BA is in Psychology. He's just some upper class twit who's bummed around the south pacific on the family money.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqnh... [dropbox.com]
He even puts "worked on my fathers Summer house" on the CV as experience! Basically he's a humped up building contractor with an overly high opinion of himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Willis Eisenbach? Where do you find these crackpots with a high opinion of themselves. He's not a scientist! His BA is in Psychology. He's just some upper class twit who's bummed around the south pacific on the family money.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqnh... [dropbox.com]
He even puts "worked on my fathers Summer house" on the CV as experience!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really, then you're okay with someone who's never written code in their live commenting on the Linux Kernel mailing list?
You'd be okay with some contractor from fiji doing surgery on you?
Expertise matters! Data does NOT stand on it's own. You know as well as I do that non-experts can misinterpret things because they don't have the expertise to understand basic concepts of the field. You know how the masses confuse the web with the internet in general? That's the same thing with Climate and weather.
Bes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they look at a function and say "hey, how is that bounds-checked"?
A real amateur like I described isn't going to know what "bounds" are! The code will be as much gibberish as ancient egyption would be to them.
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
You are not john galt
you are not lazarus long
you are not some great man held down by idiot sheeple who needs to protest against the "collectivist boogeyman" you'd see at a John Birch meeting. You are Eddie Deezen in Wargames.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The experts DO know more than the masses, it's what makes them experts. Your problem isn't experts, because ALL of us rely on various experts in modern society. It's just that you just don't like what the experts are saying about climate because of your socio-political bias so you denigrate the experts.
I'm from Illinois. We know climate change is a thing, even the conservative farmers know it's starting to affect their crops. Long heat waves, less moisture in the ground, all sorts of things. For goodnes
Re: (Score:2)
Since there is absolutely no theoretical link between higher CO2 levels and global temperatures, ...
Where in the world do you get that shit? The link between CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and other global temperatures lies in the absorption spectrum of said gases. They absorb infrared radiation and slow down it's progress out of the atmosphere. It would be astounding if an increase in greenhouse gases did not cause an increase in global temperatures.
Re: (Score:2)
yet property values are going sky high! It's almost like liberals don't believe their own hype since they all seem willing to pay millions for property on the coast. If people really believed global warming then property at sea level wouldn't be more expensive than ever.
Folks are waiting until the last minute. Article from Bloomberg: The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners [bloomberg.com]
Re:Long Island City is NOT at sea level... (Score:2)
Approx. Elevation: 13 feet (4 meters)
Seal level rise predicted by 2100: 1 to 10 feet.
So within the lifetime of everyone buying property, only a small part of that area is predicted to be flooded in even the worst case scenario.
Re:Difference between left and right (Score:5, Insightful)
It can't be reversed now even with major changes to carbon consumption (not that that would ever happen with both sides taking tons of cash from the energy lobbyists).
Nirvana fallacy. Just because a perfect solution doesn't exist doesn't mean reducing our CO2 emissions can't help.
It might be too late to avoid a 2C temperature raise. But let's avoid a 5C raise. And if it's too late, then let's avoid a 10C raise.
Re:Difference between left and right (Score:5, Informative)
It can't be reversed now even with major changes to carbon consumption (not that that would ever happen with both sides taking tons of cash from the energy lobbyists).
Nirvana fallacy. Just because a perfect solution doesn't exist doesn't mean reducing our CO2 emissions can't help. It might be too late to avoid a 2C temperature raise. But let's avoid a 5C raise. And if it's too late, then let's avoid a 10C raise.
By the time the temp increase passes 5C we are moving into great Permian extinction territory. By the time you get to 10C every life form heavier than 5 kg is likely going to become extinct ... at least that's what happened back then.
Re:Difference between left and right (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, but not world wide. Far north and far south you still will have tempered regions, question however is what kind of weather (aka storms) you have and what and how much you can grow. Around the equator it mostly will depend on your distance to the sea ... at least during the last glacier periods at the equator the temperature was more or less the same as right now. So except inside of Africa, I doubt those areas will get much warmer. However: again the question is changing rain patterns. Phillippines and Indonesia had a drought last year and partly this year and heavy floodings several times this year (I don't remember last year). Thailand is unusually dry to, at least in the north west.
No, literally every life form over 5 kg does seem to have become extinct during the Permian extinction event world wide and the oceans became largely dead zones. You can try to make a 10C increase in temperature sound like a minor event, nothing to worry about, just a Chinese hoax. Personally I would rather avoid that scenario if I could and not just because of the climatic changes. Keep in mind we haven't even begun to discuss the social and political upheaval (a.k.a. famine and wars) caused by scenarios like the entire interior of Africa becoming uninhabitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh... respondant has to be a liberal, as it has all the telltale signs - name calling... no actual solution... etc...
Meanwhile, the OP of this subthead that just got called an idiot has it right - we currently have no technologically viable way NOT to burn the fossil fuels that we've been burning. We just don't know how. We can't build a solar solution until we can store the electricity, and we do not have the "magic battery" that will do that. Neither do we have said magic battery that will allow f
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, cheaply. I just recently ran onto a fellow who is quitting his job, as he's getting abused at $11.50 an hour as a cook. That's outrageously low pay for a skilled workman of any sort, and being a moderate Republican that does not toe the party line concerning minimum wages, I think that it ought to be $15 / hr. But anyway, people like him, when the world goes to ultra-expensive cars just because they're electric, are going to be in poverty, or further into poverty, and here's a clue: Poverty kill
Re: (Score:2)
The leftist agenda is to enslave the people to be able to tell them what to do, how to live, etc. Live in "no cars" communities where you have to walk 3 blocks to where you park your car, use bicycles when you're back is screaming with the latest arthritis attack, eat what they tell you (see Michelle O's school lunch nonsense for that one), etc. etc. Leftists just want to control you and don't want you to be able to resist their doing it. The litmus test for "liberal" is "anti-gun." They want to tak
You don't have any "left" or "liberals" in the US. (Score:3, Insightful)
You only have insane extreme psychopathic fascist nutters, and batshit insane extreme psychopathic fascist nutters.
Look at the *actual* *actions* they both did. Not what they said. Not what anyone said. What they *did*.
In that case, Bush Sr, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama are the same line. The same exact team.
US leaders really are the masters in their field: They don’t even need an external scapegoat. Even when dummy Bush goes, and empties the (conveniently always kept full) villain closet, they just ho
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No you don't remember because it never happened. Nobody with any scientific credibility said NYC would be underwater by 2022. The might have said that they will be washed over by a storm surge like that which Sandy gave them but not that it would remain underwater. Mostly where you get that is some hyperbolic statement by someone trying to whip up fools like you who buy it lock. stock and barrel.
Re: (Score:2)
You are downvoted unfairly.
You are absolutely right. We need to take measures handling climate change consequences, not only measures preventing more drastic climate change.
We are breathing out now, literally, more CO2 than we produced by all burning in 1950 and by that time we were already up 0.5 degrees Celsius compared to XIX century.
We are already experiencing effects of climate change and instead of shouting "I told ya!" and in addition to calling for changes in regulation that will affect climate ch
Re: (Score:3)
You can only hear THE SKY IS FALLING!! so many times before calling BS. In 90s liberals said New York and LA would be underwater by 2015. It didn’t happen.
No one with scientific credibility in the field ever said that. You're listening to the wrong people.
Re: (Score:2)
But those bitches are expensive...
Re: (Score:2)
But the house won't be wrecked by climate change. It will be rising sea levels, or a nasty hurricane. And that will get attributed to "weather" or in Evangelical circles, an Act of G-d. Scientists will point to climate change causing the sea levels to rise and an increase in nasty hurricanes. But it will be impossible to pin it on that particular hurricane. And the sea levels will be claimed to be rising and falling through out Earth's history, so it blame again gets diffused.
And as long as el Presidente Tw
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman ?
And Trump is acting like a moron equating climate and weather.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If we don't stop lighting fires ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that supposed to be some sort of argument?
When the data is against you, science is against you and reason is against you, I guess that's all that's left. Global warming is happening. Climate change is the result. Inventing silly quotes will not change reality no matter how much your political inclinations tell you that reality is wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are arguing with me about basic facts like the clear trend of increasing global temperature year over year then you are not skeptical, you're just an idiot. That's the problem. Deniers are trying to deny the problem exists which flies in the face of all evidence. Many of the climate change mitigation techniques should be done for a whole host of reasons. Getting rid of coal energy production and reducing radiation exposure while reducing acid rain sure is hard to honestly argue against and yet you ha
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between skeptics and cynics is that skeptics are persuaded by data and cynics don't give a shit.
Since cynics don't give a shit, why should we treat them like precious snowflakes? It won't make any difference how we treat them, they still won't be persuaded by the data.
Re: (Score:2)
How convenient it must be, to be able to declare anyone that does not agree with you "a cynic" and issue yourself a free get-out-of-burden-of-proof card.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that supposed to be some sort of argument?
When the data is against you, science is against you and reason is against you, I guess that's all that's left. Global warming is happening. Climate change is the result. Inventing silly quotes will not change reality no matter how much your political inclinations tell you that reality is wrong.
Then why do climate alarmists resort to hysterical name-calling by labeling people who don't buy into their religion heretics, errr, deniers?
If it were about actual science, skepticism wouldn't be met with ridicule.
Skepticism is one thing but when the same old argument has been refuted thousands of times it's no longer skepticism but denial. A true skeptic is willing to listen to the arguments from all sides and consider which is more credible. No matter how skeptical you may be you can't change the physical reality.
Re: (Score:2)
No, sorry, it's your lot that's legalizing it in the US. Progressives are vehemently opposed.
Re:If we don't stop lighting fires ... (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, sure.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrh... [rsc.org]
Prediction: An increase in CO2 will result in net increase in global temperatures.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital... [nasa.gov]
There's the global temperature
https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]
Only the results over overlapping timeframes are relevant. As you can see, the prediction is matched with observation and has not been falsified.
Are you satisfied? Of course not! Because this was never about facts, this was about your fears that science might contradict something important to you.
Re: (Score:2)
You've cited exactly one prediction, with plenty of questions remaining about it. For example, how big a rise was he predicting — and how big is claimed by the measurements both back then and today? Can we trust the accuracies of both, given how small the claimed changes actually are?
By now, with countless billions spent on "climate science" world-wide, you should've had many more predictions to offer — and obvious ones too, without the legitimate follow-up quest
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. What was requested was one prediction from one citation. I provided one prediction from one citation. You don't get to change the question after the fact. Either acknowledge I answered the first question exactly as requested, meeting the specification in full, and then ask a new question regarding further issues, or acknowledge that you've no interest in the facts at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Answer his question:
bq. For example, how big a rise was he predicting — and how big is claimed by the measurements both back then and today?
Re:If we don't stop lighting fires ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, they do.
No, we're not supposed to be underwater right now. That was never predicted. No, there was nothing about the ice caps melting by 2015, that's far too specific. Individuals might have gone out on a limb, but then individuals will believe almost anything.
If you want to accuse it of being a far left conspiracy, you can join the New World Order brigade, the antivaxxers and the ancient aliens nuts. Because those are the people who dispute global warming. And they're essentially the only people who do. So if you don't want to be in that crowd, think.
Re: (Score:2)
How cute! You've cited one individual [slashdot.org] with a (seemingly) successful prediction to prove, that Climate Science is actually science, but are now dismissing multiple other individuals as "out on a limb", because their predictions have proved spectacularly wrong.
You can't have it both ways — cherry-picking some predictions as solidly scientific, dismissing others. The discipline's record remains in shambles and ev
Re: (Score:2)
First, that was the issue raised. I did not answer questions not asked. And, no, no climate scientist has argued what you claim. You provide no link because there are no credible sources for your claim. There is no cherry-picking, repeated attempts to find any by skeptics - real skeptics - have resulted in them actually siding with climate scientists.
What you are doing is changing the question in order to falsify the answer. You don't get to do that. Acknowledge that I was right, that the original question
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. Must be why the first study was in 1896, and why there have been a steady stream of studies since. After 1960, mostly from NASA. During highly Republican regimes, no less.
Odd.
So you're suggesting Ronald Reagan was an EU communist spy?
Otherwise, I can't see how you can relate what you said with where most of the work was done.
Re: (Score:2)
— Shamans in Tasmania, about 12000 years ago [nma.gov.au].
Obviously some folks didn't get the irony or read the referenced article. Tasmania, last I heard, is an island and is isolated from the continent.
Re:Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
you can choose to live a life not lived in fear
Well I think you're confounding finding with "fear". Science isn't here to make us feel great or feel fear, it is what it is. The total volumetric thermal energy in the atmosphere is increasing. The amount of energy that strikes the Earth from the Sun and reflects back into space is decreasing. This isn't a new feature, Example [ametsoc.org] This increase was observed in 1949. The first order derivative of that change has been a positive one over the course of the last one hundred years and if the rate of change continues it will lead to a total average energy increase in the atmosphere of two degrees Celsius.
We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago
We do see it. Heat waves that hit the middle east, rising sea levels, heat waves in Australia, receding ice shelf, decreased insect populations, ever increasing invasion of spices into regions where previous temperatures would not have allowed them to go. Heck I distinctly remember a year in December where I slapped a mosquito off my arm. It's just difficult to pinpoint any one particular affect of increasing temperatures because all of them are slow to see.
An especially clear example of this is todays NYT feature on Scary Global Warming
I distinctly remember the NYT graph, however it does give range and if you do look over at the website that provided data [impactlab.org] you'll see that there's a ton of assumptions that we could sit here for days picking apart. My particular region shows an increase anywhere between (min) 8 days and (max) 40 days of 90+ temperatures. But looking at the actual site that provided the data, you'll get a sense that it is indeed conjecture based on methods they feel are appropriate. But that doesn't negate the fact that temperatures will increase even in conservative readings of their data. Again, that's not a fear thing, that's a these are the numbers, this is what the trend looks like, deal with how you so please. But you do have to realize that NYT is obviously going to place some sort of "point" to their story.
We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago, maybe even a decade at at this point
We are seeing it. For example, in my area falling numbers [wikipedia.org] within wheat yields have impacted to a small degree acre to pound of flour numbers. Nothing massive here, maybe about 0.2% decrease in yields. However, thinking in terms of joules of energy versus the multitude of acres of wheat, it would take a significant increase in atmospheric energy to change the massive number of acres of wheat to change a 0.1% much less a 0.2%. Again, in the end product flour, it's difficult to see that translation because it's spread all over the place. And it is very, very important that I point out that FN is just one measure and not the end all be all of any debate. So I'm not saying that "Ah-Ha! I got'cha!" All I am saying is that it is "interesting" to see that. But I think that's also the insidious part of climate change is that it can change factors ever so slightly because the effect of climate are very wide ranging. So while exponential energy accumulation may not always in turn evolve into full on heat waves, it can also deposit the excess energy in other ways that in aggregate are near impossible to foresee, but they happen none-the-less.
I would LOVE to see a serious discussion on climate at some point
I'm not sold on that point. I feel you've made your mind up about the debate and rather just yell at how people are wrong rather than show where they are wrong. I'm even typing this and wondering what the hell is the point here con
You are hyper-focused On Fear (Score:2, Insightful)
Well I think you're confounding finding with "fear". Science isn't here to make us feel great or feel fear, it is what it is.
That is what science is supposed to do, but in modern times is often "goal oriented science" to be done just to back up a desired selling point.
The thought that I am confounding anything ignores the headline here: "Climate Change Will Have Dire Consequences For US, Federal Report Concludes"
How is that not obviously meant to instill fear?
Even if the worst things in the report this art
Re: (Score:2)
In my cases since 1960 the number of days of temperatures over 90 degrees has risen by exactly one - from six to seven. The graph shows a wildly wandering line just to get there.
The interior of the country is more strongly effected, it's how climate works. So ask somebody from say Illinois or Iowa if they see more days with over 90 temps in recent years than say in the 70's.
By the way...I'm from Illinois...and yes. And by the way the range of armadillos now extends to Illinois...and southern pest species....like kudzu...have been moving north as the climate has become more warm.
While I agree in not living in fear, your arguments are similar to those who say we don't need to do an
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. First of all, FSM is a satire, as you know, second, it does not involve any scare. Third, it's very fringe satire, and only pimply juvenile imbeciles ever use it in their opportunistic fight with "the man".
Not Right (Score:2, Troll)
amirite
No, you are not right.
The caravan is a political stunt, nothing more. A useful tool for everyone of any "side".
SJW's are destroying only their own subset of culture really. What has truly changed as a result of them? Not much.
Antifa are the Lost Boys for the modern age, doing what they think is right with the misguided energy of youth and inexperience, sadly some greatly messing up what were otherwise promising lives.
I'm interested in how you decide which mythical all-destructive forces to believe
Re: (Score:2)
To Slahdot admins: would you please retire "Flamebait" and "Troll" modifier? Every single article on the front page in the that rectangle of mosly commented articles is already flame by definition. Are you downvoting people who bring the article to a front page?
This does not make sense. And Troll is a stupid designation, it is used 100% of time against people with minority political opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
What I love about Slashdot is absence of censorship. Reddit would ban three times already all three of us for our comments (what a shithole, I wish slashdot had more users, of course, that would convert slashdot to reddit, because Eternal September, do not get me started)
Re: (Score:2)
I am struggling to understand what is your complaint here. Are you some kind of creepfan of freezing nose-frostbiting climate?
Re:Polar Bear example (Score:2, Interesting)
You talking about the photo of a polar bear that was supposed to be 'the face of climate change"? That was taken by SeaLegacy, a definitively non-scientific PR environmental group. The photo and label were strongly shot down as being inaccurate by scientists and local residents, the same scientists that do say polar bear populations are declining in many places due to climate change (the local population was doing well at the time). Thing is, the scientists prefer hard data and long-term studies, not che