Many of the Climate Impacts Predicted in the Last National Climate Assessment, in 2014, Are No Longer Theoretical (nytimes.com) 346
This year's report contains many of the same findings cited in the previous National Climate Assessment, published in 2014. From a report: More and more of the predicted impacts of global warming are now becoming a reality. For instance, the 2014 assessment forecast that coastal cities would see more flooding in the coming years as sea levels rose. That's no longer theoretical: Scientists have now documented a record number of "nuisance flooding" events during high tides in cities like Miami and Charleston, S.C.
"High tide flooding is now posing daily risks to businesses, neighborhoods, infrastructure, transportation, and ecosystems in the Southeast," the report says. As the oceans have warmed, disruptions in United States fisheries, long predicted, are now underway. In 2012, record ocean temperatures caused lobster catches in Maine to peak a month earlier than usual, and the distribution chain was unprepared.
"High tide flooding is now posing daily risks to businesses, neighborhoods, infrastructure, transportation, and ecosystems in the Southeast," the report says. As the oceans have warmed, disruptions in United States fisheries, long predicted, are now underway. In 2012, record ocean temperatures caused lobster catches in Maine to peak a month earlier than usual, and the distribution chain was unprepared.
What is interesting ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Nations want to avoid this, they will all work together, as opposed to pushing others to cut back, while they continue to add lots more fossil fuel plants.
Re: (Score:2)
America wouldn't be most affected even if it was hardest hit because we have the most useful free space. We could lose half our farmland and nobody would have to go hungry. (People are already going hungry even though we are throwing away tons upon tons of food, but that's a separate discussion.) Europe is crowded.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why anyone would expect America to be hardest hit. The US "National Climate Assessment" naturally focuses on.. the US.
The degree to which a country feels the "hardness of the hit" depends on that country's economic and political vulnerability. In 2017 we had our second straight year of record flooding, but despite its immense cost that amounted to less than 1% of our GDP. Since that cost was mostly borne by private entities, and it was non-discretionary, as a whole the country took it in
Re: (Score:3)
If Americans did not care, why does our emissions continue to drop? Even when we have Trump and the GOP as leaders. Because citizens care and push our states.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the winters in 2017 were unsualy hard. ... but I doubt it will shift the balance.
There is no prediction that CO2 emissions will rise in 2018. Why would they? The summer was perfect for low CO2 emissions. Well, the winter came early it is unusually cold in west Europe
Re: (Score:2)
There is no prediction that CO2 emissions will rise in 2018.
Yes there is.
Why would they?
Because they are shutting down nuclear plants like they are going out of style.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are shutting down nuclear plants like they are going out of style.
The claim was about Europe. Not about Germany.
And Germany shuts down coal plants, too. Replacing both with renewables. Do you live under a rock?
The CO2 increase was due to winter and more heat usage in housing, has nothing to do with nuclear power. In Germany we never had a meaningful amount of houses that were heated by nuclear power: hence switching off nuclear power plants has nothing to do with increased CO2 production. That
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah ... sorry.
Was not aware about that.
Strange ... as I live in Europe (mostly).
I guess this is fraud: https://www.eea.europa.eu/them... [europa.eu] ??
To bad we have no weapons as weapons are banned here, or should I say "firearms" to go after those pretenders ...
Idiot!
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't care either. US carbon emissions have been dropping for the last ten years, but the initial drop corresponded to the Great Recession, not any kind of public policy.
Later on those reduction continued because of the (then unpopular) fracking friendly policies of the previous administration. This was arguably more from concern over US energy independence than climate change. They also were keen for the US to become a gas exporter to blunt potential Russian influence in Europe.
The slight redu
Re: (Score:2)
If Americans did not care, why does our emissions continue to drop? Even when we have Trump and the GOP as leaders. Because citizens care and push our states.
That and natural gas is currently much cheaper than coal.
That ultimately is why the coal jobs aren't coming back, no matter how much "degrgulation" (i.e. environmental wrecking) is allowed. It's too expensive.
America leading efficient technology use (Score:2)
Why do they buy the least efficient cars/ air conditioners/ foods?
That statement is complete garbage. The reason American's emissions have fallen a LOT in comparison with everyone else, is BECAUSE we are mostly all buying the most efficient cars/appliances/foods..
Anyone who can is buying green cars (like Teslas or high efficiency vehicles, sometimes not by choice).
If you go into any store to look at washers/dryers/fridges/AC units you are looking at almost all very high efficiency units.
For food farmers ma
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why the focus on droughts, which is plainly wro (Score:4, Insightful)
Your claims are as absurd as claims of other people.
On average it will be wetter or more precisely: more humid. There is no evidence that deserts will become green or "food baskets" as your parent calls them get more water in the right time.
Humidity in the air, which makes it (perceived) unbearable for humans, does not mean it rains enough to water plants or even food crops.
We have trouble to predict El Nino and LA Nina effects, and that are cyclic climate phenomena, and you want to predict which area of the world will have more water for agriculture in 20 years or in 50 years? I call that hubris (no idea why americans spell it that way) .... but good luck!
Why Can't Alarmists Read? (Score:2)
That will be the title of my book, should I ever write one... I am sure there is rich fodder to be had from these crazy times, I'll have to start keeping notes.
humidity in the air, which makes it (perceived) unbearable for humans, does not mean it rains enough to water plants or even food crops.
It is curious you would marry two un-related points; plainly increased water was from the ocean, not from humidity.
We have trouble to predict El Nino and LA Nina effects, and that are cyclic climate phenomena, and y
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be just fine with them predicting less.
That is just your perception.
But in case of e.g. Spain: yes. There is no reason why Andalusia should have more rain when the "weather" around it, aka over the Atlantic is warmer and hence more water evapours. The water aka clouds don't know: "oh!!!! we are more know!!!! we can go over the mountains and rain behind it!!! Lets go, lets go!"
The clouds will rain down before the mountains just like they always did ...
If that will result in less water, I don't kn
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that would result in areas getting dryer is if major changes occur in air patterns - or geology. Since most geology will remain about as we know it over the span of a hundred years or so (modulo supervolcanoes) it makes it especially puzzling to claim that areas of Southern Europe will not only bet warmer, but dryer...
It would help you understand if you knew more about Hadley cells [wikipedia.org]. The heating of the air at the equator (really the point on the Earth where the sun's rays are perpendicular to the surface) causes air to rise. As it rises it cools and the water vapor precipitates out creating the tropical zones where there is a lot of precipitation. Once the air reaches the tropopause it spreads out horizontally until it reaches about 30 degrees north and south. Then the air drops back to the surface and as it drops bac
Nothing will ever get done. (Score:3, Interesting)
Government will decide who's money is taken to pay the price, who is affected by the grand goal of controlling our climate. Who must downsize their dreams/houses/lives, Who gets what amount of electricity, heat and food. What industries are outlawed. Who's jobs are done away with. Who gets travel permits and who must stay where they are.
It seems to me that most everyone here is shouting that something has to be done but usually exclude themselves. They see it as the fault of others that little is being done.
Step up, vote correctly and you will bring your wildest dreams in to reality. But you may not like what you get. Socialism really does suck kids!
As for me, I don't see much happening that will affect me. I am 63. Have not flown in 10 years. Put 23 miles on my Toyota Prius last month. Have not driven over 2k-3k miles a year in, well years. Live in a 2000 sq ft house. And work remotely for the most part. How about you?
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
Step up, vote correctly and you will bring your wildest dreams in to reality. But you may not like what you get. Socialism really does suck kids!
Social democracy on the other hand works very well.
Have not flown in 10 years. Put 23 miles on my Toyota Prius last month. Have not driven over 2k-3k miles a year in, well years. Live in a 2000 sq ft house. And work remotely for the most part. How about you?
I own no car, but I do fly occasionally, mostly for work. Drive well under 1k per year. My house is a little
Thereâ(TM)s just one problem (Score:2)
Globally, sea levels havenâ(TM)t risen. Itâ(TM)s apparently quite convinient to ignore areas where sea levels have stayed the same for many decades or even receded and instead only focus on areas where itâ(TM)s risen. Do so many people genuinely think that the fact that sea levels have risen someplace automatically means they have risen everywhere? Newsflash: it doesnâ(TM)t.
Re: (Score:2)
Do so many people genuinely think that the fact that sea levels have risen someplace automatically means they have risen everywhere? Newsflash: it doesnÃ(TM)t.
What? Of course it does. The mean increases more in some places than others, but the maximums increase everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
The NOAA seems to disagree with you:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-in... [epa.gov]
Climate mitigation (Score:2)
People will not stop releasing CO2 for a while and sucking it all back in is impractical. Time to get going with practical mitigation like Netherlands-style dykes, genetically modified coral that can withstand heat/acidity, spraying aerosoles in upper atmosphere, thinning out the forests to control wildfires and so on. The great thing is that a lot of these measures can be done locally rather than waiting for 7 billion people to agree. Humans have modified the environment and remedied their own impact for t
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Sea levels are rising at about 4mm per year, and that rate is expected to accelerate as warming continues. This is a SERIOUS PROBLEM in the long run, and we need to deal with it.
But since 2014, that is 16mm, or about 0.6 inches. It is ridiculous to claim that this is the cause of coastal flooding. This sort of silly alarmism is causing "crisis fatigue" and just making people more and more skeptical about global warming and science in general.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're the one saying you know more than the experts because 16mm doesn't seem big enough to you to cause any trouble.
Sorry, but you're a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so convinced, don't forget that we're talking averages here. If tides become more pronounced as well, an inch average can quickly get closer to a foot in tidal effects.
We should take a look what the extremes (flood and ebb) changed, not just the average.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A couple years later the patient goes back to the doctor. The cancer has metastasized. There's a huge effort, but it's all for naught.
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
No, it isn't. But that is NOT what TFA is saying. It is saying that the 16mm rise from 2014 to 2018 is causing serious flooding NOW. That is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're the one saying you know more than the experts because 16mm doesn't seem big enough to you to cause any trouble.
Re: ridiculous (Score:2)
Saying ASAP does not sound like expert should be saying. Too non specific
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
Yes, it is because 1) good science is not conducted by consensus.,
I'll give you that. But science is conducted by evidence. And for AGW, there's lots of it.
2) it is not 99% anyway,
A popular (and sloppy) figure of speech. The point is that scientists who disagree with AGW conclusions (and the need for action) are a tiny minority.
3) th AGW crowd does not follow the scientific method and therefore is not performing science.
Citation please.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really alarmism when 99% of the experts say we need to solve a problem as quickly as possible?
Yes, it is because 1) good science is not conducted by consensus.,
I'll give you that. But science is conducted by evidence. And for AGW, there's lots of it.
Uhh, I wouldn't give them that, considering how theories and laws are formed / accepted. They are literally a consensus of many people doing the same experiment and saying "yep, that's what we observed". If there are any outliers that are found, the theory / law gets adjusted accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
You're obviously on my side, but I must gently disagree on one point regarding consensus.
If the 1% that disagrees with the other 99% has a strong case -- and evidence to back it up -- then they must be considered. If they prevail, then oh well, so much the worse for AGW. The 1% and 99% are all smart people. They would all find something else to do.
But what has happened is that the 1% do not have a strong case. Yet they are vocal, and often backed by parties with a vested interest in attacking AGW.
Re: (Score:2)
Sea levels are rising at about 4mm per year
Let me explain how you're being tricked. To get the annual rise they take the total rise over the last 100 years and divide it by 100.
Did you spot the problem? What if I took the total rise over the future 100 years and divide by 100? Now Miami is sinking at at least an inch per year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flooding as the result of sea level rise is a non-linear process because flood/no flood is a threshold. Your shore management system was maybe planned and built in the 60s and there's been 10 cm of rise since then. That was fine, big storms might surge over it but day to day high tide wouldn't. Except high tide with the right wind gets closer and closer to the top of that berm each year....
Re: (Score:2)
It makes you question whether the authors are being balanced about the effects, or pushing for certain political outcomes, which would make the
Re: ridiculous (Score:2)
But since 2014, that is 16mm, or about 0.6 inches. It is ridiculous to claim that this is the cause of coastal flooding.
Are you merely demonstrating your math skills or are you actually trying to imply that sea levels only began rising four years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your UID shows you have been around here longer than most of us. If I were you, I'd post with the bonus modifier on. You have earned it by contributing well-received posts for a long time. It encourages others to do likewise.
I'm not sure that turning your modifier off protects you from the effect of down-mods. And where can you see your karma points? Slashdot stopped showing these a long time ago -- before I even joined, I think.
So, IMHO, my advice is, when you post on slashdot, be honest, rational, and pol
Re: (Score:2)
And the fact that you know nothing about how points come to the posts show that you are ignorant about how /. works or an idiot or both.
Hint: if he would have been modded from 0 - 1 or 2, there would be a tack like +insightful, +informative etc. on the score.
More awesomer (Score:2)
When science gets it wrong, it's still wrong.
That and people keep claiming science is all about fact/truth etc when it's nothing of the sort. It's about best explanation of the day.
Re:More awesomer (Score:4, Insightful)
When science gets it wrong, it's still wrong.
That and people keep claiming science is all about fact/truth etc when it's nothing of the sort. It's about best explanation of the day.
Science does not know everything. IAAS and I'll be the first to tell you that. However, science is indisputably the best tool humans have to investigate a great number of things in the universe.
You are right that science is not about the truth, but only insofar as science considers absolute truth to be inaccessible. However, science most definitely does deal in facts -- observable facts -- as the foundation of a process that tries to place the tightest possible shrink-wrap around the truth.
As for science being about the "best explanation of the day", you overlook that science continually strives to find better and better "explanations" (aka theories or laws) -- ones that last longer and longer before they need to be replaced, modified, or extended. This is a strength, not a weakness. And some of these "explanations" are venerable indeed -- ones such as thermodynamics, the atomic theory of matter, darwinian evolution, and so on. They can be challenged at any time by contrary evidence, but we have yet to see any.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't exactly call four years of data climate.
The data on sea level rise goes back WAY more than 4 years.
Recent Sea Level Rise [wikipedia.org]
Satellite altimeter data goes back 20 years, and there are tidal records from around the world going back more than a century.
Re:So, it's time to do something (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice red herring. Nobody's "throwing options off the table that lightly". There is active ongoing research into the effects of iron seeding going on at my nearby university, and CO2 producing power is being replaced as we speak with other options
The only ones throwing options off the table are the people who keep maintaining that it's not a big problem and that if we just wait a little bit, the climate will change back.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is your point? Nobody who takes climate change as fact is throwing options off the table (except maybe the "start WW3 so nuclear winter counteracts the warming effects", I think we can write that off as causing more problems than it solves).
Re: (Score:2)
This in spite of the fact that New York City had more traffic fatalities last year than nuclear power has killed in all of history.... Despite the fact that you are wrong ...
Consider having a nuclear accident like Fukujima or Chernobyl in NYC: the traffic accidents would skyrock.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Ah, the good old fashioned "X, ???, Profit" canard:
1. Make manufacturing more expensive, ruin the economies worldwide (developing and not) by taxing energy, and throw the poor back into poverty
2. ???
3. Profit
It is not enough to merely point out problems. Any idiot can do that. Suggest real, actual solutions. And no, taxing CO2 and methane is not a viable solution, if you care about the economy, standard of living, etc, the cure is worse than the disease. And fixing problems here when China and India shit al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In before Republican liars try to question all (Score:5, Interesting)
Come up with actual solutions that don't involve mass starvation before throwing around insults like "denier" and "liar."
I am a science supporter. Here are my solutions:
1. Better and more available contraceptives for 3rd world women.
2. Better education, healthcare, higher literacy rates, and better sex ed for 3rd world women
In the long run, these first two solutions will likely have the greatest effect. No one will use less CO2 than the people that aren't born. The 1st world has already turned the corner on both population growth and energy consumption. We need to help the rest of the world do the same, and do it faster.
3. More efficient air conditioners. The best ACs use a 3rd the power of the worst. Wider adoption of ACs in India, China, and SE Asia is the biggest reason for growing CO2 emissions. We should have an $10M X-Prize for a better and cheaper AC.
4. More efficient and cost effective insulation, and improved passive heating systems for buildings.
5. Better sensors to detect people moving around in buildings. Only heat/cool/light where the people are.
6. Better batteries. Wider adoption of electric cars.
7. Wider adoption of wind and solar, along with better storage, and better long distance transmission.
8. Improvement of internet speeds and tele-presence technology so that fewer people need to travel and commute.
9. Aggregated self-driving-delivery-on-demand services, so no one needs to drive to the grocery store to buy a jug of milk, or go to the post office to drop off a package.
10. Iron fertilization of the oceans to generate plankton blooms. This will remove CO2 from the ocean, and increase fish harvests. People can eat more fish and less beef. Of all the geo-engineering proposals, this is the easiest and the most likely to work.
None of these require killing half the human race (although #1 and #2 will reduce our numbers) nor destroying our civilization.
Re: In before Republican liars try to question all (Score:5, Interesting)
9. Aggregated self-driving-delivery-on-demand services, so no one needs to drive to the grocery store to buy a jug of milk, or go to the post office to drop off a package.
I've got a better idea—how about we design our cities and neighbourhoods so that the shops are within walking distance of most people instead of regarding the mandatory use of a car for this as something "normal", which in much of the rest of world it is not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In before Republican liars try to question all (Score:5, Informative)
Because it is actually pretty hard to have enough people within walking distance to support most types of stores beyond the corner quickie-mart.
It is not a problem in Europe, and neither in the few countries I visited in Africa and Asia.
that is going to need market area of a couple tens of thousands of people, and it is rather difficult to get that many people to fit within walking distance of anything.
You have never been in a civilized city, like Paris?
There are supermarket chains that have a store every 200m ... and the big stores you find in commercial areas or outside of every medium sized town, like Leclerce or Auchon etc. have a "miniAuchon" etc. all over the city.
And then again: every majour road is chained with "Arabs" selling food and groceries and "Chineese" selling vegetables and fruit. I live in Menilmontant when I'm in Paris. In a radius of 100m around my place are probably close to 50 food shops, and 3 or 4 of them are super markets. In a radius of 400m I most likely have 20 super markets.
Three times a week thee is a market on the middle "lane" of the road. The road is "three lanes", a double lane in each direction, and a center lane for pedestrians, lined left and right with trees. There is market so often and you can buy everything from eggs via cheese and oysters and fish to vegetables and simple clothing and a USB charger ... or second hand cloth.
https://www.google.co.th/maps/... [google.co.th]
Use street view and walk around. It is full with small shops, restaurants, small hotels, coffee bars and: super markets!
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? I live within easy walking distance (less than 5 min) of two general grocers and half a dozen fresh fruit and vegetable and specialty grocery places. Population density in my neighbourhood is around 8000 / km^2, which is nowhere near the density downtown.
Mostly the case in germany (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In before Republican liars try to question all (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly how cities and villages are made around the whole world that haven't been bulldozed for a highway. I lived this way for years on the West Coast of the USA, and I saw it in Peru. Mixed-use densely populated centers, built to a human scale rather than an automobiles. Guess what? It's way more pleasant to be able to do your daily commute and socializing and basic grocery shopping in the course of a half-mile walk than sit in traffic. It's way more fun, way more affordable, way less accident-prone, way better for everyone to live around. And, it spares the environment of a lot of damage.
Re: (Score:3)
You can keep your ant farm for humans. I can stand outside at night and hear the wind blowing in the trees. When I lay down to sleep, it is actually dark in the room.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Ewe Wanna Taek Aweigh Meye CAR!" [incoherent babble]
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to grow up
Re: (Score:2)
1. Better and more available contraceptives for 3rd world women.
How many third world countries are there left? Somalia comes to mind ... and do you know more?
How much population do they have?
How much CO2 do they produce?
See: cutting their population growth to zero, would change nothing!
Re: (Score:2)
I am a science supporter. Here are my solutions:
1. Better and more available contraceptives for 3rd world women.
2. Better education, healthcare, higher literacy rates, and better sex ed for 3rd world women
In the long run, these first two solutions will likely have the greatest effect. No one will use less CO2 than the people that aren't born.
The 1st world has already turned the corner on both population growth and energy consumption. We need to help the rest of the world do the same, and do it faster.
No science supporter thinks population is either the problem or a useful solution.
Not while a 1st world person consumes 30 times the resources of a 3rd world person. Sex ed, condoms and an education are never going to result in a 30x drop off in 3rd world population.
Helping the third world rise is a nice thing to do. It can certainly yield some benefit on the margins (assistance with renewable energy technology, land use...etc) as they will rise regardless of whether they are assisted or not yet realistic
Re: In before Republican liars try to question all (Score:5, Insightful)
3. More efficient air conditioners. The best ACs use a 3rd the power of the worst. Wider adoption of ACs in India, China, and SE Asia is the biggest reason for growing CO2 emissions. We should have an $10M X-Prize for a better and cheaper AC.
4. More efficient and cost effective insulation, and improved passive heating systems for buildings.
Efficiency angle already well into diminishing returns territory especially heating and cooling scene. While it is physically possible to do some crazy shit like heat a mansion in sub-zero weather with a candle the reality is quite different.
5. Better sensors to detect people moving around in buildings. Only heat/cool/light where the people are.
This is often a counterproductive strategy for the most energy efficient heating and cooling technologies as a practical matter they operate by leveraging temperature differentials on a continuous basis. When you heat or cool a space it's not just the air and moisture content you are also heating or cooling solid matter in the environment which is 1000 times the density of air.
6. Better batteries. Wider adoption of electric cars.
7. Wider adoption of wind and solar, along with better storage, and better long distance transmission.
By far the biggest bang for the buck in energy space is development of dirt cheap batteries that don't suck ass in any way (low weight, high density, safe, operating temperatures, long life). If you can pull it off everything in the energy scene changes overnight.
9. Aggregated self-driving-delivery-on-demand services, so no one needs to drive to the grocery store to buy a jug of milk, or go to the post office to drop off a package.
If you want do something meaningful on the conservation front increasing household size is the most effective option available.
Iron fertilization of the oceans to generate plankton blooms. This will remove CO2 from the ocean, and increase fish harvests. People can eat more fish and less beef. Of all the geo-engineering proposals, this is the easiest and the most likely to work.
There are productive things that can be done with carbon without polluting the air and seas with crap and seeing what happens.
STP/biochar for example can provide best soils for growing crops while sequestering excess carbon.
Re: In before Republican liars try to question all (Score:4, Interesting)
don't forget all the little ways you can make a difference that are actually attainable.
I heard an interesting story about how an accountant reduced CO2 emissions by a hundred thousand tons per year.
Potatoes were sold by the ton. So farmers would soak their harvested potatoes in water to increase the weight before they sold them. Then the buyers would put the potatoes in warehouses and run giant dehumidifiers to dry them out so they wouldn't spoil, and so they would cook faster.
An accounting change, started by McDonalds and soon adopted by the rest of the fast food industry and then groceries, was to buy potatoes based on dry-weight. This obviated the need to soak and then dry the potatoes, saving time and energy consumption by both the farmers and their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like bullshit to me. Wet potatoes go off really quickly, almost overnight. Anyone trying that trick would get zero repeat business.
Re: (Score:2)
#1 and #2 requires the eradication of Islam, for it's the religion based on the subjugation or women and children.
Iran is Islamic, and averages 1.6 births per woman, well below replacement level. Turkey, Malaysia, and Bangladesh are Islamic and average 2.1 births per woman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bangladesh is actually a case study in population control. The birth rate was one of the highest in the world, somewhere around 7 / woman. The country realized this was a problem and tried all kinds of things, including heavily promoting (and giving away) birth control.
Nothing really put a dent in the birth rate. However, concurrently, the ministry of education had decided that all children, including girls, should receive a mandatory minimum education. Bam, birth rate dropped. Now it's about 2.1 / woman.
Wrong - CO2 emissions from humans are the cause (Score:2, Insightful)
Humans are indeed the cause of climate change. I'll just leave this right here. [skepticalscience.com]
Your proposed solution of just moving to higher ground or putting our houses on stilts is just not realistic. Temperature and sea levels are not the only things that will change. We will also see shifts in the location of weather. Habitable and arable land will shift and dwindle. Not all crops can simply be moved and cultivated elsewhere.
Recall what has happened in human history when a resource has become scarce: war.
Re: Wrong - CO2 emissions from humans are the caus (Score:4, Informative)
I read your grade school Mr. Science link. I am sure this is convincing to a grade schooler. However, most grade schoolers have not been taught that correlation is not causation. I wont bother providing a link for that.
When you have actual scientific evidence, please post it. Until then, AGW is no different than being Christian. Both require faith and ignoring or twisting science to get the desired conclusion regardless of facts or lack thereof.
We can measure the effective 'age' of the atmosphere via carbon dating. It is getting older. We know that CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere. We have sophisticated models that predict the change in climate accurately (and models from 30 years ago have proved to be very good). So in what way is this correlation and not causation? For it to be only correlation you need to show why, this time, CO2 is not trapping heat in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
You ARE aware that all the impacts you cite happened long before human emerged to be a problem for this planet? And that these things are (fortunately) quite rare?
Re: (Score:2)
So it's really about which catastrophe is the most damaging vs time to deal with it. Meteor damage wins hands down because of magnitude and the fact it occurs instantly.
That being the case, it's something other than human survival t
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth doesn't care what it "reverts" to. It will be what it will be. But from the point of view of humans we want it to revert to a climate that best supports the civilization we have built. Anything outside of that becomes more costly and if you get far enough from that ideal climate it could mean the collapse of the civilization,and undesirable outcome from most humans point of view.
Especially question flooding linked to sea level (Score:3)
If you look at data for Fort Denison in Sydney [psmsl.org] for example, they show a rise of around 0.25 feet over 100 years.
If you look at that graph even more closely, you'll find something pretty interesting.- the sea level is pretty stable up until 1950 or so, where it takes a large rise and then remains fairly stable thereafter (draw your own fit line from 1860 to 1950, then from 1950 to 2010).
So since 1950 there has hardly been a rise at all, at peaks a 50 *mm* increase - that is just 0.003 feet!
Just how is that m
Re: (Score:2)
That is data over time... I want the data that shows the rate of change from their "predicted" vs "reality" along with the "prediction data".
I don't dispute that sea levels are changing in either direction, that is just data. I want a smoking gun, the data that shows clearly that...
#1. Global Warming is undeniably caused by "certain gasses" and their proposed links to human activities. Right now there is a logical breakdown with correlation does not equal causation dilemma. Are these gasses rising becau
Re: (Score:3)
Just how is that much sea level rise supposed to result in any flooding above and beyond the huge variance that is tidal levels? ... however that depends on coastal structure, no idea if Sydney is particular prone to storm floods.
Because 1mm average sea level rise means 1mm more water in low tide and roughly 6mm more water in high tide and on top of that, if there is a wind from the wrong direction it increases those 6mm to 18mm to 36mm
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because 1mm average sea level rise means 1mm more water in low tide and roughly 6mm more water in high tide and on top of that
Stop making shit up. I can tell you are making shit up BECAUSE YOUR MATH DOESNT WORK.
If 1mm is the low, and 6mm is the high... you know what the average absolutely isnt? the 1mm you just claimed. You just shat a giant dishonesty turd on the discussion AND ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT ARE THE PROBLEM.
You are a lying dishonest fuck and you n eed to fucking STFU forever. People as egregiously dishonest as the lying fuck you are harmful to every possible conversion
Re: (Score:2)
If 1mm is the low, and 6mm is the high... you know what the average absolutely isnt?
No it is not.
Sea levels are measured by the low tide.
So if on average over the whole world the sea level rise at low tide is 1mm, it is considerably higher during high tide.
Sorry, if I was unclear. (However: no idea why you think average means a distribution over low and high tide ... why do you think that would make any sense at all?)
You are a lying dishonest fuck and you n eed to fucking STFU forever. Perhaps you should v
Re: (Score:2)
at peaks a 50 *mm* increase - that is just 0.003 feet!
lolwut?
Not sure why you're switching to decimal fractions of a foot (isn't is more conventional to use multiples of 1/537 of a chain at this point), but that's 0.16 feet, or in more common Imperial parlance, 2 inches.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you're from the Church Of Ignorance, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
You need to read my post again. my numbers are sourced exactly from that graph, if I am ignorant then you are a moron.
Ignorance can be easily fixed by learning, the question is how to fix a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
The greatest deniers are basically TV meteorologists, the ones that published no papers: 16% flat out denial.
So yep, you ARE from the Church of Ignorance and Lies.
Re: (Score:2)
You are an idiot.
From the summery of the article you linked:
In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known e-mail addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate
The not responding others probably have canceled their subscription ... that would I do if honestly a climate research group, where I'm a member in would ask me if (A)GW is (par
Re: (Score:2)
Closest tidal gauge with long term data is Key Eest. The following alt-right false news site pretends the rise has been pretty steady for a century, which because of the complete lack of correlation with CO2 emissions is of course proven a lie by scientific consensus.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obta... [psmsl.org]
If you look at some more of their lies there are stations with longer history which show sea level rise has been steady for well over a century.
Re: (Score:2)
"The following alt-right false news site pretends the rise has been pretty steady for a century, which because of the complete lack of correlation with CO2 emissions is of course proven a lie by scientific consensus."
You are being deceitful. I said "correlation does not equal causation" this by its very virtue is a sentence that agrees there is correlation, it is not any form of an accusation that there is a lack of correlation, as you so falsely advance!
You also do science a disservice by advancing the no
Re: (Score:2)
I keep seeing articles that say these things are recorded... so... are we going to get a pointer to those records or what? Or are we "allowed" to see this data of "flooded cities" and "environmental impacts" or is Slashdot the mouth piece of the New Catholic Church where all the relevant data is locked up behind the doors where only the clergy may access?
The "Report" being linked in the "Article" that Slashdot "Links to" has no relevant data to look at, no historical comparative analysis, no names of places being "disastered". It only mentions past events like Hurricanes, the ever favorite go-to the global warming apocalypse is upon as though hurricanes of great devastation never happened before.
Here's an example of a flooded city. Look at Charleston, SC which is having some serious king tide flooding right now. Yes it's happened occasionally in the past, maybe once or twice a year 50 years ago but now due to about 10 inches of sea level rise it's happening multiple times every year and by 2045 they expect it to happen 180 days out of the year. It's becoming a serious problem for them.
King tides and sea level rise [charleston-sc.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, 9 inches since 1880.
Sea level rise since 1880 [epa.gov]
And this from the tide gauge near Charleston, SC shows an average rate of 3.25 mm/year +/0 0.19 mm. That's 1.07 feet/100 years:
Relative Sea Level Trend - 8665530 Charleston, South Carolina [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just curious what you think your anecdote proves. Are you claiming that the existence of flooding pre-warming implies that AGW can't increase flooding?
Re: (Score:3)
The notion that "global warming" means that it has to warm everywhere equally all the time is a ridiculously weak straw man. But even if that were true, a +2C increase would not be enough to make snow disappear in places where it is common. In fact in most such places the limiting factor in snow isn't temperature, but atmospheric moisture.
The simplest disproof of the "uniformly warmer everywhere all the time" straw man is winter. AGW is caused by solar forcing, which is locally weakest in winter. In fact
Re: (Score:2)
With all the AI that is now blossoming everywhere, why is it that websites can't monitor and ban spam and offensive behavior?
Although in the US we have a first amendment, there is nothing in that tells every website that it must serve as a platform for the most egregious and time wasting bs.
Re: (Score:2)
You: "The ocean is in exactly the same place it was when I moved here in 2009. Hmmmmm what could then be causing all that flooding?! It's not all the hurricanes and tropical storms, because those have actually gone down in number."
Reality: "In the North Atlantic Basin, the long-term (1966-2009) average number of tropical storms is about 11 annually, with about six becoming hurricanes. More recently (2000-2013), the average is about 16 tropical storms per year, including about eight hurricanes. This incre