NOAA Report: World Labor Capacity Dropping Because of Increased Temperatures 337
pigrabbitbear writes with a story about some interesting possible effects of Global Warming. From the article: "It's a good thing that robots are stealing our jobs, because in about thirty-five years, nobody in their right mind is going to want to do them. Scientists from NOAA just published a report ... that details how a warming climate impacts the way we work, and the results are pretty clear — we do less of it. NOAA discovered that over the last 60 years, the hotter, wetter climate has decreased human labor capacity by 10%. And it projects that by 2050, that number will double."
Jaw drop (Score:1, Interesting)
NOAA was one of the most respected organizations in my head until this BS.
Is John P. Dunne trying to keep his job or something??? How in one's sane and collected mind are they actually corroborating reduction in labor by increased temperature?
This is akin to me releasing a report, with data of my choosing that has changed since 1991, stating that the fall of the Soviet Union contributed to the increase in population in the rest of the world.
The two are completely unrelated! There is NO evidence whatsoever that they can possibly be connected. I don't care if one is a believer in climate change/global warming or not, this is complete tripe!
Oh, and let me tell you while I'm at it, my headache frequency has increased by 10% due to the EMI from electronics in the past decade. Rubbish!
i hope we get some cooling (Score:4, Interesting)
then when the east river in NYC freezes during winter and the temps are so bitter cold that the hipster idiots will go crazy and blame it on global warming
and then the intelligent people can point out that this is completely normal. it used to happen in the 1800's all the time before global warming screwed things up with a warmer winter
WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the amount of work actually done in the past 60 years has gone down because of union regulations (amount of time you are able to work a day, number of breaks required to give workers), regulations against child labor, regulation of minors in the workforce, and the possibility that a lot of jobs in the past 60 years (not all mind you) have turned from factories and physical labor to offices. Many occupations have also modernized and mechanized, increasing production and decreasing the need for physical labor.
While a 1-3 degree difference in temperatures (or even 5-10 degrees if you want to get drastic) is enough to cause global enviornmental issues, I doubt that anyone is going to say "Shoot, its 73 today whereas 60 years ago it was 70, Oh, its just too hot, I can't work today". "Oh, its summer in Phoenix, its 110 today instead of 107 it was 60 years ago on this day, oh, I just can't do anything".
Really really stupid corrolation.
That is like saying the number of viewers of the Today Show has increaded substantially over the past 60 years, so we are going to say that The Today Show has got to be the most awesome show on television, and take into no account the number of households who have bought televisions in the past 60 years, the population growth, or even comparing it to the actual percentage of total viewers now versus then.
Re:Doubt (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently the US Army disagrees, because it's their research (amoungst others') on people's ability to work under heat stress that forms the basis for the model.
Re:Jaw drop (Score:2, Interesting)
So you concede the data is correct?
Simple logic exercise then.
If things get hotter, do you need to take more breaks?
If you take more breaks will your productivity rise, or fall?
GO RTFA troll
Riddle me this, oh troll commenter: How do you correlate global temperature as a reduction in labor without factoring in other information and variables? Does your communication reduce your labor time (it is, mine, right now)? Does your distraction with mobile devices interrupt time? Does contract labor time filling and limitation requirements limit your work time? How about the freedom to do so -vs- past "work-till-ya-drop" rules?
I read the fucking article, oh name caller. There is no direct or indirect correlation that ties temperature increase or decrease to increase or decrease in labor - there are more OTHER factors than you can count that come into existence every day, month, year, decade, ad nauseam.
The paper is a WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. Just like my commenting on here is. I just don't HAVE to do it to get paid or promoted; climate research individuals do.
Quick final question to you, oh anonymous commenter that won't even bother reading this... What would you do if your superiors said you needed to produce writings or papers to prove a point but you don't have any solid data to tie anything together? If you don't write it, you lose your job (oh, and believe me, you can't be secure in getting another one should you lose this one). I think you would write a paper and pick through as much data as you could to try and make some correlation that can look solid in the minds of shallow thinkers that wouldn't bother to tear it apart and think a bit deeper than "A+B/C*D/(A^2(F))+(mc^2)=COOL REPORT".
Fucking use your brain. There are more things than temperature that lead to loss of productivity and/or breaks in work. As I said before: rubbish.
Re:No kidding... (Score:4, Interesting)
There might be work available in Texas but that doesn't mean there is work available everywhere.
I had to make an emergency still unemployed relocation across the country from FL to NM because it took a year to get a crappy Job in FL (bottom level retail crappy) and despite having no kids and relocating to the cheapest apartment I could find and cutting all possible costs that job didn't pay enough to keep afloat. After the move I was amazed when applying for positions actually resulted in responses again and had no problem getting not just a crappy job but an excellent position in my chosen profession.
Re:NO sense at all! (Score:5, Interesting)
Dude, the difference is SLAVERY. All large civilizations are built on the backs of slaves...
Not, they aren't; it may be PC to say so, but it's just not true. No large modern civilization was built mainly on slavery, because slavery is just not efficient and productive enough. It's risky and expensive to educate slaves, so you can't build serious industrial capacity on slavery, their mobility as a workforce is minimal, you get lots of extra expenses for security, not to mention motivation.
Even in America, where slavery was much more prevalent and lasted more than in most other world powers, the productivity of the industrialized North (based mostly on immigrant labor) was far ahead of the productivity of the slave-owning South. Look at the 1850 census, especially here http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1850c-06.pdf [census.gov] (table CXCV, on page 11) to see how the gross manufacturing production of non-slaveholding states dwarfs the GP of slave-holding states. Though the difference isn't as great, the agricultural production (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1850c-05.pdf) AND productivity was also larger in the North.
Of course, this doesn't mean the slaves didn't contribute, or had it easy, but, if you really want America to have been build on somebody's back, that back would belong to the immigrant laborer.