Earth Is Hotter Than at Any Time Since Steam Engine Was Invented (bloomberg.com) 249
The last five years on Earth have been hotter than at any time since the industrial revolution kicked off almost two centuries ago. From a report: That's the conclusion of Europe's Copernicus Climate Change Service, which published data on Wednesday showing that global average temperatures since 2015 were some 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than when steam engines began powering industry. Last year was the second warmest on record after 2016. "These are unquestionably alarming signs," Jean-Noel Thepaut, the head of climate change monitoring at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, said in an email. As wildfires continue to ravage Australia and pollution increasingly chokes millions living in cities, the new data highlights the rapid changes that the Earth's ecosystem is undergoing as a result of man-made carbon emissions.
Damn commies! (Score:2)
Re: Damn commies! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Damn commies! (Score:2)
Re: Damn commies! (Score:2)
Not cool ;( (Score:2)
Earth is colder than anytime since the dinosaurs (Score:2, Informative)
were invented. We are still in an ice age. The last comparable ice age was 300 Million years ago.
The normal temperature on earth is about 6 to 8 K warmer than it is now. Polar ice and extremely low CO2 levels like we have now are a rare exception geologically.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/All_palaeotemps_G2.svg/1400px-All_palaeotemps_G2.svg.png [wikimedia.org]
Irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the end of the world, but very disruptive (Score:3)
That's neat. It's also irrelevant, if we're talking about impacts on human civilization.
Exactly.
Yes, the average temperature of the Earth was much warmer back when the dinosaurs were around. You can infer from this that no, life won't go extinct if the average temperature rises another five degrees.
But the current temperature rise will put the temperature higher than it has been at any time in human history. We've built a civilization around the current temperature levels and sea levels; an abrupt change is going to disrupt a lot.
Also, the rate of change right now is unprecedented-- it is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing is the only push back on these radical claims seems to come from the so called 'Deniers' but where are the actual climate change proponents basically saying what a load of crap no one is predicting that who has 1/2 a brain?
I am not a denier. I just finished posting in this very thread "no, life won't go extinct if the average temperature rises another five degrees."
If you want to know who is saying "no one is predicting that who has 1/2 a brain": me.
If they did people may start to believe they are scientists rather than activists,
The actual scientists say that over and over again.
Re: (Score:2)
What they actually said was that we only have a few years to start turning the trend around or else global warming will have too much momentum to stop. Nothing about all life ending, human or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one is trying to "make Earth's climate stand still for us." We're the ones who are changing it. We need to stop doing it, because we're causing terrible problems for ourselves and most other species on Earth.
The climate is always changing, but on a very slow time scale. That gives species lots of time to adapt. Ecosystems always stay close to equilibrium. We're changing it much more quickly, and that doesn't give us or other species time to adapt. Ecosystems get thrown way out of equilibrium, and t
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hubris. It's science. It's been investigated by tens of thousands of scientists over decades. Your uninformed opinion about what man can or cannot do is irrelevant to the facts.
Where's Summer? (Score:2)
Ice age (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The earth has also been getting gradually hotter since the last ice age.
No it hasn't. That was over 8000 years ago. https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Fermi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What should we do about it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I like hearing about problems. This give me an opportunity to discuss solutions. What I don't like is having to go over solutions on problems already proven that can be implemented. If you present me with a broken computer then I'll look into what can be done to fix or replace it. If I tell you that it would cost too much to fix, and keep coming back for solutions, then I will get a bit frustrated on why you haven't already tossed the computer and bought a new one. Complaining on not wanting to buy a n
I guess that's what 375 billion tonnes ... (Score:2)
... of excess carbon in the atmoephere and its carbon cycle do for you.
But that's nothing. Wait until you see the effects of excess methane kicking in.
Unfortunate (Score:3)
That is unfortunate, because steam engines are less efficient the warmer the ambient temperature is.
Morons (Score:2)
I don't care how hot is compared to some range up to an arbitrary point you picked.
I care about how hot (or cold, or dry, or wet, or shakey, or electric, or ashy, or magnetic, etc.) is compared to all of the planet's history, as best as we can determine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course it's hotter (Score:4, Informative)
Not at that speed though or Earth would look like Venus today.
Re: (Score:3)
That is only relevant if we haven't seen any deviation in speed in the last 20'000 years.
Unless the development is linear, then a timeframe of 200 years out of 20'000 really has no relevance. It's like you're eating soup and some schmuck sees you, calculates that if you ate three soups a day you'd eat about 11 thousand servings of soup in the next ten years.
You can see the obvious flaw in this, right? :D
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever. I'll enjoy Miami sinking beneath the waves.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a nice commented timeline graph of the last 20000 years. Don't stop before you scrolled down to the bottom (now).
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The last ice age was around 400 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
On the other hand "Hotter than ever" is a pretty bold statement considering that earth started as a ball of molten rock.
Re: (Score:3)
The last ice age was around 400 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The so-called "little ice age" was not an ice age.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Because it didn't have cute Mammoths and Giant sloths and sabre tooth squirrels and they didn't make it into a animated family movie?
But seriously: why?
I have to admit that I didn't read the English wikipedia article I linked to but rather the article before I switched languages to give an English link, so I haven't noticed that the classification as "not a real ice age" made it only into the English version.
Yes, it wasn't the every-continent-covered-by-glaciers ice age (as in the movie...) but then ag
Ice age [Re:Of course it's hotter] (Score:3)
Why? Because it didn't have cute Mammoths and Giant sloths and sabre tooth squirrels and they didn't make it into a animated family movie? But seriously: why?
In the context, it was not an ice age because it was not marked by the advance of glaciers into areas previously not glacier covered.
Admittedly, the word "ice age" is slightly ill-defined. Originally, it referred to the glaciation, but now geologists use it to mean the entire period in which part of the Earth is permanently covered in ice. So, the earlier definition would allow us to say "the most recent ice age ended 10,000 years ago," but the current usage would correct that to "the most recent glaciati
Re: (Score:3)
The earth has been getting hotter for the last 20,000 years since the last ice age ended.
And if we go back far enough it was hot enough to melt rock.
Which part of either of those statements indicates that it's a good idea to cross our fingers and dump billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere?
Re:Of course it's hotter (Score:4, Informative)
Better more than less, and what little we are adding is doing almost nothing to alter the climate since CO2 doesn't affect temperature on the scale we are changing it.
So... how much does it affect temperature? Citation needed.
Here's mine: https://climate.nasa.gov/cause... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of either of those statements indicates that it's a good idea to cross our fingers and dump billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere?
The part where if CO2 falls below a certain level all plant life dies and then we are really all screwed.
You do understand that this is a non sequitur?
Nobody is talking about removing so much CO2 from the atmosphere that plants can't survive. Advocating that we not dump billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is not the same as saying we should remove even more than was there to start with.
The phrase "what little we are adding" means: 33 billion tons of CO2 per year.
If that seems "little" to you, think of it as a twenty cubes of frozen CO2, each one measuring one km on a side. Per year.
is doing almost nothing to alter the climate since CO2 doesn't affect temperature on the scale we are changing it.
A
Re: (Score:2)
If that seems "little" to you, think of it as a twenty cubes of frozen CO2, each one measuring one km on a side. Per year.
That's not really an informative analogy. Most people can't imaging cubic kilometers.
The thing you need to think about is that the layer of atmosphere around the earth is so thin that there's hills you can climb up and there's not enough air to live.
Thinking we can't possibly add 33 billions of tons of CO2 per year (plus a whole load of other greenhouse gases like methane) without any problem is madness.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, CO2 alone cannot cause all of the warming we are seeing. However, the small amount of warming caused by CO2 increases water vapor which is another greenhouse gas, creating more warming, then more water vapor, and so on in a vicious cycle [realclimate.org].
All of this warming is creating [skepticalscience.com] deserts, and deserts are not exactly the best places to find plant life, or even animal life to create the CO2 that plants need. So if you ex
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually incorrect. The temperature reached a maximum about 8000 years ago (the Holocene climatic optimum) and then began decreasing again. But thanks to the warming of the last two centuries, we've shot back up and gone way beyond it. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/... [wikimedia.org], and note the arrow at the right edge showing the temperature in 2016.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly I'm at the point where I want us to NOT change our habits... just to see whether the outcome really is going to be as bad as people are screaming and yelling about.
Re: (Score:2)
"...just to see whether the outcome really is going to be as bad as people are screaming and yelling about."
Eventually it wont matter -- and it'll be far worse than what people are yelling about.
The sun will swell, and the earth will burn. It's going to happen.
If we're smart -- we'll be hanging around a few moons of Jupitor and maybe inside a few hollowed out asteroids we've managed to "push" to other stars.
Or we wont -- and we'll all be dead and even what little remains as mineralized fossils will be bur
Re:Point of Reference (Score:5, Informative)
The current temperatures also far surpass the MWP temperatures. BTW, your quoted book is full of lies (yes, just plain stupid lies). Mann's "hockey stick" graph so far has held up quite nicely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . Moreover, it got corroborated by multiple additional proxy methods.
Re:Point of Reference (Score:5, Insightful)
The key to science is reproducibility. What I find most interesting about this story is the image [kxcdn.com] which shows the temperature reconstructions from six different institutions, all showing pretty much the same trends
https://news.cision.com/se/copernicus-climate-change-services/i/december2019b,c2734286
The fact that different researchers on three different continents show the same trend gives me some confidence that this is not experimental error.
Re: Point of Reference (Score:3)
Did you see results from rejected papers?
Re: (Score:2)
And they've been super-accurate for the past two centuries, so there's never been a need to "adjust" the temperatures to fit the desired results, right?
Indeed they are. The average reconstructed fidelity is within 0.2C, you really need adjustments if you want a better precision. "Adjustments" are also only done by _lowering_ the measured temperature or ignoring the extreme points.
Re: (Score:2)
And they've been super-accurate for the past two centuries, so there's never been a need to "adjust" the temperatures to fit the desired results, right?
That's correct. Measuring temperature isn't some flipping complex science here. The first attempts to measure temperatures accurately began in 170 AD. Heating points and melting points for water, sea water, an array of metals and so forth were worked on between 860 and 1130, however these first attempts were not successful as pressure was never considered as a factor in measuring temperatures. The first thermoscope was developed in 1593. It was improved upon in 1612. Ferdinand II, the Grand Duke of Tu
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to claim we have "direct instrumental records of temperature" for the last 200 years, fine, but you have to use the temperatures these instruments displayed, no adjustment.
Why not? Do you enjoy basing your data on known incorrect measurements?
Re: (Score:2)
No. If the measurement has any doubt or uncertainty whatsoever, it can be thrown out if it doesn't meet arbitrary requirements, totally not made to "coincidentally" cherry-pick the data. /s
Error bars [Re:Point of Reference] (Score:5, Informative)
This surely looks like a lot time, but why not "in last two thousand years" or something like that?
Because the further back you go, the more uncertainty in temperature measurements. Here, for example, is the Berkeley Earth record. Notice the error bars go up as you go back in time.
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-co... [berkeleyearth.org]
Maybe because Middle Age was hotter [sciencedirect.com] or what?
There's pretty good reconstruction for Europe for the Medieval Warm Period, 900-1300 AD, but not good data for most of the rest of the globe. It's very difficult to tell how much of this was a warming of Europe, and how much globally,
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Point of Reference (Score:5, Interesting)
This surely looks like a lot time, but why not "in last two thousand years" or something like that? Maybe because Middle Age was hotter [sciencedirect.com] or what?
1. Middle ages were NOT hotter in Europe and the Northern Hemisphere. They were more continental in Europe. HOTTER SUMMERS and MUCH COLDER winters. Specifically, during the period you refer to, there are:
1.1. 5 occasions when the Black Sea froze more than several miles off shore everywhere and it is entirety in its Northern part.
1.2. 3 occasions when the Bosphorus and parts of Mare Marmaris froze.
1.3. 2 occasions when the bay of Marseilles and the bay of Venice froze in their entirety as well as parts of the Adriatic.
You can grow crops in a more continental climate as the summer is hotter and you store them to endure the winter from hell. That is exactly what the archaeological finds show. If it was all wonderful, however, the Vikings would not have spread south, they would have still lived up North instead of conquering Normandy and founding what are the modern states of Russia and Slovakia.
2. If we had a normal weather pattern we should have been way into a winter from hell. Setting a huge chunk of Europe and/or Asia on fire used to provide a guaranteed cold winter after that. It is the so called "General Zima" effect - you torch the Russian fields and you get their oldest and most dangerous ally to make an appearance. It has happened every time in the last 1000 years: https://www.fagain.co.uk/node/... [fagain.co.uk]
It should have happened this winter too - after the Siberia fires. It did not. So there is definitely something wrong with the climate (though the winter is not over yet).
Re: (Score:3)
This is probably because they are talking about the "instrumental record". The instrumental record only goes back to the time instruments (thermometers) for reliable and precise measurement of temperature existed. This happens to be just a little before steam power displaced water power in the industrial revolution.
Shortly after that it became standard practice for British Royal Navy ships to routinely take and log ocean temperatures. So the instrumental record dates back as far as there globally distrib
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the issue of the beginning of the industrial revolution coinciding with a time period known as the little ice age, where it snowed in June. Then there's the fact that the public is fed a false narrative: that the earth's climate is somehow stable. The last 10,000 years are incredibly rare in the earth's climate history. Seldom is it stable and in fact it goes on a 30,000 year cycle between warm periods and ice ages.
Now that said, that also doesn't mean we aren't contributing to the warming that
Re: (Score:3)
The lie that will not die. There was a Newsweek cover story in 1975 - which is not "the 80s" btw - but hey, accuracy is not the point in screeds like this. Cons love to cite this and ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary because, you know, "feelings": https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com] .
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
too stupid, greedy, and shortsighted to do anything about it.
Welcome to humanity. It's good to see you're growing up and finally realizing what we are.
Re: Had a good run while it lasted (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Strawman.
"Figuring stuff out" and "planet wrecking" are not mutually exclusive or incompatible.
Living longer just means more time to wreck.
Re: (Score:2)
"AprÃs nous le déluge" should be the motto of the boomer generation.
Re: (Score:3)
"Apres Nous Le Deluge".
("pas de bonnes polices" should be the motto of Slashdot.)
Re: (Score:3)
You're not wrong, but it's always funny when people think they can "blame" older generations as if they wouldn't have done the same fucking thing.
It's like this cult of anti-Americanism that constantly complains about our imperial/colonialism. Like the natives weren't butchering each-other, and like the natives wouldn't have spread out through the world and butchered other cultures had they been able. They were all the same human stock and would have behaved the same in similar situations. If Native America
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hope your descendants enjoy the little hellhole in space that you're busy creating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I was twelve I was stuck out on a mountain for three days with two others. We did just fine.
Your argument is a strawman though. You seem to believe things can't get worse than they are right now. They can.
One of the ways it could get a lot worse for you and your descendants is via global warming.
Re:Had a good run while it lasted (Score:4, Funny)
My mate and myself have above normal intelligence, we feel that it is imperative that smarter people produce more than two off-spring.
We called it "Counter Idiocracy" behavior and I would encourage anybody with an IQ over 130 to do the same
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Don't falter in relation to upbringing and education. More important than the reproduction itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Flamebait?
Stop guilt-tripping people who didn't reproduce. You don't know why, so shut the hell up.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Doesn't appear to be so much "Climate Change" as it is the result of stupid humans doing what stupid humans do [nsw.gov.au], and it being exacerbated by happening at the perfectly optimal worst time to happen, seasonally speaking.
From that bastion of truth snopes.com - it is false that "nearly 200" people were arrested for deliberately setting fires [snopes.com] - instead:
That would be a distortion of the facts. Police in New South Wales released a statement disclosing that since Nov. 8, 2019, 183 people, including 40 juveniles, have been charged with 205 bushfire-related offenses. Of the 183, 24 people have been charged with deliberately setting fires. According to police, of the 183, another “53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban,” and an additional “47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.”
But notice something odd about these examples of "distortions":
Local press reports indicate that not all of the people charged committed acts that contributed to the raging brushfires. For example, a man in the Sydney suburb of Wallacia was fined for lighting a fire to make a cup of tea. That blaze was extinguished by firefighters. Another man was cited for lighting a fire to cook food in the town of Tarro. That fire was also put out by responding crews.
Firefighting crews responded to a man boiling water and another cooking food? They paint these as sm
Australian fires [Re:Not hot enough] (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't appear to be so much "Climate Change" as it is the result of stupid humans doing what stupid humans do [nsw.gov.au]
You say this as if they were mutually exclusive, but they're not.
People do stupid things-- discarding lit cigarettes, letting campfires go unattended-- all the time. Whether these result in massive wildfires or minor brush fires depends on how susceptible the environment is to fire, which includes the weather and the drought conditions, both of which are influenced (partly!) by the climate.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be argued that in both cases, it's stupid humans doing what stupid humans do.
Are you for real? (Score:3)
Firefighting crews responded to a man boiling water and another cooking food? They paint these as small fires, yet required fire crews to extinguish Sounds like these small fires grew out of control and required fire crews to be extinguished.
If fire crews respond to a fire in a place where there is a fire ban. Of course they are going to put it out no matter how small it might be...
Re:Not hot enough (Score:5, Informative)
Please cite the laws that prevented PG&E from trimming trees. I ask because I don't think there are any and I think you're just miming far right talk show nonsense. They do so love to make things up about California.
Here's an article from last October about PG&E being massively behind on 2019s tree trimming that they are required to do. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bu... [sfchronicle.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They do so love to make things up about California.
Group sues Lafayette to stop PG&E from cutting down 272 trees:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2... [eastbaytimes.com]
"Radical" tree trimming: Critics say PG&Eâ(TM)s rush to stop fires may hurt California forests:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/ca... [sfchronicle.com]
Is PG&E going too far in cutting trees for fire safety? A Sacramento group says yes
https://www.sacbee.com/latest-... [sacbee.com]
They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Re:Not hot enough (Score:5, Informative)
A lawsuit is not evidence. Evidence would be a judge issuing a preliminary injunction, or a ban would be evidence.
So all you have is a bunch of people whinging without any actual requirement to stop the tree trimming. That's not damned if you do damned if you don't. That's appeasing a tiny group of easily ignorable idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Context is key.
PG&E let their infrastructure to rot and become unsafe. Other then fixing it, they are widening there error margin.
Lets make the roads wider, because your cars steering wheel doesn't turn as far anymore.
Re:Not hot enough (Score:5, Informative)
I was asking for justification for your statement that "PG&E was forbidden to clear forest around power lines". What you gave me was a lawsuit that has not been ruled on (which could happen in any state) and two opinion pieces.
You've failed to justify your statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all the fires blamed on PG&Ewere caused by trees, either. At leas
Re: (Score:3)
What about it? Hmm. I suppose what it means, is that when there is a law which prohibits cutting down trees, that causes our thermometers to be wrong. i.e. the fact that the law exists means that it's not really hotter.
Did I perform the logic correctly?
Re: Not hot enough (Score:2)
What about Australia law preventing preventative fires and cutting of trees for fire prevention?
Could you at least try to phrase your question as a complete sentence??
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the problem with Climate Change is that we haven't created a modernized infrastructure to address it effects?
The reason why Climate Change has so many Deniers is because it demands us to do things differently to adapt to the changes.
Increasing the gaps for Firewalls as previous fires were smaller and would burn themselves out earlier. Finding that 100 year flood risks are more common so you probably shouldn't be living in that waterfront property. Reallocating City and Rural resources for the chan
Re: (Score:2)
What about Australia law preventing preventative fires and cutting of trees for fire prevention?
What law? This is a furphy spread by Murdoch media. There are laws that mandate that controlled burns be done to reduce fuel loads. Given the drought, reduced funding to the NPWS and RFS (who do most of the hazard reduction burns) and extended fire season there was neither the time nor resources to do the amount of reduction required. Fuel reduction does not usually include removing trees, it's about removing the flammable brush and leaf litter from the understorey. https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au] Listen
Re: (Score:2)
What is negative population? Zombies? (Score:2)
I for one welcome the arrival of our new life-sucking, negative head count overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
And here's another very unpopular opinion.
People won't collectively do enough to stop or slow down global warming any time soon. Until maybe it becomes too late and half of humanity perishes in various catastrophes and ensuing wars.
Even though we have over five billion believers on this planet, no one actually believes in afterlife. No fucking one. And when you live only here and only now, why would you bother to think about future generations? They might get fucked for all you know.
We should throw as
Nope. (Score:2)
The planet is not hugely overpopulated. It could easily support 20 billion.
To illustrate: The entire human population could live in a lightly populated rural area the size of Texas, with all food coming from the direct surounding areas and states.The rest could be a large natural reserve. We'd all do great and have massive unexplored lands to go on eco-friendly outdoor vacations in.
However, given the stupidity of the human populace in general, cutting down population might be a viable way to prevent stupidi
This is a job for nerds [Re: This again] (Score:2)
Look no further than China where they are still struggling to constrain the growth of population even among those with education, birth control and clean food and water.
Birth rate in China is at a historical low: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
But in China it's hard to say how much of this is due to prosperity, and how much due to the draconian policies. In other parts of the world that didn't implement draconian one-child policies, however, demographers have shown that prosperity, education, and access to birth control all do in fact reduce the birth rate.
How can you solve that without providing the poorest of this world with prosperity which Earth cannot realistically provide?
Now you've asked the really important question.
The answer is, we need new technologies that give us energy, and p
Re: (Score:2)
Now you've asked the really important question.
The answer is, we need new technologies that give us energy, and prosperity, without damaging the Earth.
Impossible. There will always be some "damage". The goal is to keep the damage to the point in which natural processes can overcome. I believe that is what you meant.
The answer is nuclear power. Not only nuclear power, we will need other low impact sources like hydro and onshore wind.
Any retorts of, "But what do we do about the waste?" is a demonstration of not understanding the relative difficulties of the problems at hand. What do we do about the waste? We know what to do about the waste. If you di
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. Being outside that narrow ideal band is uncomfortable.
Life will have absolutely no problem, even well outside that band. And I am confident that humanity can make it through all the worst case scenarios. But if we can keep our coastal cities above water, that's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
False (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Or a clarification of which millennium you are referring to...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone interested in the Climate Change discussion, the parent post is obviously referring to the 1930s and 1940s. For anyone who has read the American classic "The Grapes of Wrath" or the Australian classic "The Thorn Birds", it is also obvious.
Floods, heat, decade-long droughts, tornadoes of fire when the trees don't just burn but explode... it is hard to imagine what the climate was then. If it happens now, millions would die. Then, tens of thousands died in America and Australia, millions in Ind
Re: (Score:2)
I think the counter to this, would be to note that the denialists have continually asked for "more data" or "more research" and then ignored it when it has come out. Climate Change exists, we know this, we know how it has been caused, and what parts of our activities are contributing the most to it. The costs and efficacy of various possible remedies has been analyzed and many options discussed.
There really does come a time when you also have to do stuff. That was quite a few years back. But damage limitati
Re: (Score:2)
we know how it has been caused
Correct. The sun.
False (Score:2)
That's false. The IPCC has reviewed tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies about climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you don't understand science.