Is There Still a Ray of Hope On Climate Change? 462
Hugh Pickens writes "David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times that even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998), the country seems to be moving further away from doing something about climate change, with the issue having all but fallen out of the national debate. But behind the scenes, a different story is emerging that offers reason for optimism: the world's largest economies may be in the process of creating a climate-change response that does not depend on the politically painful process of raising the price of dirty energy. Despite some high-profile flops, like ethanol and Solyndra, clean-energy investments seem to be succeeding more than they are failing. 'The price of solar and wind power have both fallen sharply in the last few years. This country's largest wind farm, sprawling across eastern Oregon, is scheduled to open next month. Already, the world uses vastly more alternative energy than experts predicted only a decade ago,' writes Leonhardt. Natural gas, the use of which has jumped 25 percent since 2008 while prices have fallen more than 80 percent, now generates as much electricity as coal in the United States, which would have been unthinkable not long ago. Thanks in part to earlier government investments, energy companies have been able to extract much more natural gas than once seemed possible which, while far from perfectly clean, is less carbon-intensive than coal use. The clean-energy push has been successful enough to leave many climate advocates believing it is the single best hope for preventing even hotter summers, concludes Leonhardt, adding that while a cap-and-trade program faces an uphill political battle, an investment program that aims to make alternative energy less expensive is more politically feasible. 'Our best hope,' says Benjamin H. Strauss, 'is some kind of disruptive technology that takes off on its own, the way the Internet and the fax took off.'"
Natural gas is not clean energy (Score:5, Informative)
Natural gas is not clean energy. I seem to remember that the greenhouse gasses emitted during extraction and processing of shale gas, which is the source of most of our current boom IIRC, offsets any benefits. Does anyone know?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither is ethanol. As many of the simple minded radical greens, the author can't tell the difference between clean (as in less pollution/harmful environmental effects), renewable and low greenhouse gas emitting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do so many critics of climate change mainstream resort to name calling? I think it's a rhetorical tactic, to appear uncompromising and intimidating. But at the same time, it undermines credibility -- it seems like you have nothing to say and are falling back on tactics.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to some references to support these things you claim exist. In your list of environmental "stupidities", the only one I know of in recent years is opposition to nuclear plants (given the explosions in Japan and the proliferation risks in Iran, are you sure nuke opponents are really all that crazy? I mean, think of all the setbacks in Iran's clean energy program caused by whoever developed Stuxnet. Way more effective than anyone chaining themselves to a plant. Do you suppose that was a G
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Natural gas is not clean energy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's far cleaner (and greener) than coal, which is what we call "compromise" and taking "baby steps". These are things that the climate alarmists don't understand
Unlike many issues, it's meaningless whether we find a compromise that meets everyone's political preferences. We need a solution that meets the hard requirements of nature. Climate change won't negotiate with us.
Re:We are moving in the right direction (Score:5, Insightful)
if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.
No serious party is making those predictions or proposals. Only the deniers characterize the argument that way. Read the actual science and proposals, instead of the characterizations by their political opponents; for example read the IPCC reports (or just the summaries, which are relatively short); they are what you are looking for.
Your assurance doesn't help in the face of the facts. Also, the free market would work better if those emitting carbon had to pay for it, instead of dumping the cost on everyone else: It creates a false incentive to the emitters (carbon emission is free!) and runs up my taxes and bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Natural gas is not clean energy.
The point is that it's better than coal, there's no such thing as clean coal, and if you can't get people on nuclear, and solar and wind aren't economically viable the natural gas is at least less bad than whatever else we're doing.
The big thing missing from this discussion is that there *are* government investments in alternative energy, not so much US investment (some though), but it doesn't matter if the tech is developed in Finland or Philadelphia it can still be used, and that matters a lot. Once you
Re:Natural gas is not clean energy (Score:5, Informative)
The more subtle point is that on the one hand it is notably better than burning coal for energy, but on the other hand CH4 is such a potent greenhouse gas that if very much at all is leaked in the process of drilling/shipping/storage, then all the benefits are lost.
Is There Still a Ray of Hope On Climate Change? (Score:2, Informative)
That's an easy one:
"No."
Next question please.
It's always been TOO LATE (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's always been TOO LATE (Score:5, Informative)
From 2009, Obama has four years to save the world [examiner.com].
From 2009, Global Warming is now irreversible [slashdot.org]
From 2006, the end of the world as we know it [smh.com.au]
2005, Past the Point of No Return [independent.co.uk]
2004, Damage becoming irreversible [commondreams.org]
1989, We Have 10 Years [newsbank.com].
Personally I think we've missed a huge opportunity to fund fusion [imgur.com] research [slashdot.org]. It wouldn't actually take that much from a global community perspective. If Copenhagen had focused on funding Fusion instead of trying to make transfer payments to 3rd world countries, they could have gotten support and actually accomplished something. It would have been great. Oh well.
Re:It's always been TOO LATE (Score:5, Informative)
It's not TOO LATE; it's never TOO LATE (Score:3)
Given enough clean energy, we can always build a plant that will take CO2 from the air, combine it with hydrogen from water, and make hydrocarbons. We can then gasify the hydrocarbons to produce carbon. And pure carbon (as opposed to CO2) we can sequester easily.
Don't believe me? Look out your window. See that plant? No, the living one. That's such a plant. Then the gasification produces charcoal. Or, if you can't get enough of those plants, for this function, they can be replaced [nasa.gov].
Wait, Wait, Wait (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Man’s unique reward, however, is that while animals survive by adjusting themselves to their background, man survives by adjusting his background to himself. If a drought strikes them, animals perish — man builds irrigation canals; if a flood strikes them, animals perish — man builds dams; if a carnivorous pack attacks them animals perish — man writes the Constitution of the United States. But one does not obtain food, safety or fr
Re: (Score:3)
What I have heard is a ton of conservative saying that government never solved anything. If you check what you wrote, soemthing pretty close is in it.
In other words, the claim you just made against the liberals? The opposite claim is what I hear from the conservatives.
Both are entirely ridiculous. Any sane person recognizes that if something always does bad, it gets replaced with something better.
You are clearly a hypocrite. People that live i
Re: (Score:3)
petroleum is going to run out some day (Score:2)
I've always thought an excellent common ground, regardless of opinion on AGW, is that the carbon based stuff in the ground is not inexhaustible. You can even disagree on how long it's going to last, but why not plan for the inevitable and really invest in alternatives? It addresses long term supply concerns, reduces pollution, and, if you're of a certain mindset, helps keep the planet from melting. Win, win, win.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal and natural gas, which also produce CO2 in plentiful quantities when burned, both exist in multi-century supplies. We can't use them for that long without finding some way to seriously recycle the carbon dioxide, which in turn means we need SOME kind of solar power capable of overcoming the chemical potential gap of super-stable carbon dioxide. It can be algae, but fundamentally, we're using the sun to deal with the problem, and man-made solar power is more efficient than organic.
Re: (Score:3)
Prices are determined by the law of supply vs. demand. As supply of fossil fuel decreases the costs will rise and that will leave people very hungry for energy. People are already complaining about rising energy costs and fossil fuel is still relatively extremely cheap.
So long as "we all agree" that fossil fuel is not inexhaustible, then it's pretty much common sense that there is going to be a massive market for alternatives in the future.
I have nothing at all against investing in those alternatives. I jus
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the hyperbole? (Score:2)
You're either so focused on one part of the summary I didn't read or you so dead set on some political belief that you're willing to cast any discussion of climate change as hyperbole. Please clarify your concern.
Get it! (Score:2)
There is a big ray of hope: Sensible policy (Score:3)
There is a very straightforward solution: Sensible policies.
I know what you are thinking: 'That's politically impossible'. That's what obstructionists want you to think, that nothing can get done. Don't be so easily intimidated and demoralized. If you want it done, it will happen. Every other advanced economy manages it; we can too.
The obstructionists are out of steam; their tactics are obvious and they have little left to say. I think Churchill said, 'America always does the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities'. I think we're just about at that point.
And in future reporting... (Score:2)
Thanks in part to earlier government investments, energy companies have been able to extract much more natural gas than once seemed possible ...
... The Wall Street Journal will attribute this solely to corporate innovation -- probably Xerox :-) -- like it did for the Internet [slashdot.org].
Fax 2.0 to the rescue! (Score:2)
Our best hope? Please. (Score:5, Interesting)
Our best hope is a radical alteration using chemical means?
Are you kidding me?
We still use HALF the energy in the US and Canada heating and cooling mostly empty buildings. We could easily just change zoning and tax laws to encourage buildings to have green roofs, provide their own power, use half the energy to heat and cool, and build them for barely more than we pay for buildings nowadays. Practically the entire campus here is built using such buildings now.
We still have massive untapped energy sources of hydro, mini-hydro, micro-hydro, geothermal, wind, urban wind, tidal and other energy sources that would dramatically impact GHG impacts. In America.
We still use cars that only get - and this is from an ad last nite - only 36 mpg when we can easily crank out 60 mpg cars today. Or replace 15 mpg vehicles with 30 mpg versions that function THE SAME using technology we HAVE TODAY. Heck, we could replace them in areas where electricity is mostly green (e.g. populated coastal areas) with plug-in electric cars. Or people could bike or walk more.
There are a lot of very simple things we could do today.
But ... we're lazy whiners. Period.
Re: (Score:3)
We still use cars that only get - and this is from an ad last nite - only 36 mpg when we can easily crank out 60 mpg cars today. Or replace 15 mpg vehicles with 30 mpg versions that function THE SAME using technology we HAVE TODAY. Heck, we could replace them in areas where electricity is mostly green (e.g. populated coastal areas) with plug-in electric cars.
- energy cost - replacing perfectly fine 36mpg car with brand new 60mpg one is a net loss for the environment. It is estimated that the half of total car-related energy expediture is during its production. In other words even doubling the efficiency doesn't make you break even, and that's not counting additional polution (mining for resources, junking old cars)
old car: X production, X exploatation
new car replacing old car: old car already produced X, X production of the new one, 0.5X exploatation
2X < X +
Re: (Score:3)
"the largest generation of human beings in history" has applied to every generation in the last couple centuries. Yes, in spite of the best part of 100 million deaths in WW2, the there were more people alive at the end than at the beginning.
And yet, population growth rates have been declining pretty steadily for decades.
USA and Europe are into negative population gro
When you decide to do something. (Score:3, Interesting)
Stop being greedy self-centered asshole that main purpose in life is consumation. And it is main purpose in life for many of people. All those that, like George Carlin say, buy things they "DON'T NEED" with money they don't have.
I don't own a freaking iPod or iPad or 50 pairs of shoes and pants and big screen TV, and don't have a need to "get one" as soon as it starts hitting the media... if there's a practical need for me to get one, I'll get one. I'm not gonna go blindly buy everything. You may think this isn't related, but it is. 90 % of stuff you can buy/posses is BS. More worse, stupid BS. But as long as it's fancy and flashy ... it's alright eh ?
When you stop simply consuming without thinking, all those factories will gonna close down. Lost jobs ? Oh well, you can't sit with one ass on two chairs.
Stop bloody complaining, and do something about it.
Natural gas a distraction in context of climate (Score:3)
That's nice, but while natural gas is "cleaner burning" than some other fossil fuels in ways that are very significant to a number of other environmental concerns (particulates, sulfur emissions, etc.), its only very slightly better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions for the energy produced, and even completely replacing all coal power generation overnight wouldn't do much for climate change. In the context of climate change, natural gas is red herring, not an alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
its only very slightly better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions for the energy produced, and even completely replacing all coal power generation overnight wouldn't do much for climate change. In the context of climate change, natural gas is red herring, not an alternative.
To inject a little science and engineering into it beyond DragonWriter says so, you can't transport natgas by shoveling chunks of it into a barge, and you can't store it by merely creating a pile of it out in the open. Yes it takes more energy to dig coal out of the ground than natgas, but it turns out to be pretty cheap compared to the transport and storage energy costs. The mine vs well thing is pretty much a non-starter WRT to EROEI ratios.
The real tragedy of burning natgas as a primary energy source i
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, natural gas as it is currently processed is greenhouse neutral and not a benefit as is currently supposed by just examining the combustion step.
However a lot of the current technology is just flat out sloppy and definitely could be improved pretty easily. Some efforts are in progress.
http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/basic-information/index.html [epa.gov]
By including methane in greenhouse gas amelioration efforts quite a bit can be done more cost-effectively than by tackling CO2 alone.
Natural Gas == Fracking (Score:4, Insightful)
Natural Gas == Fracking == Destruction Of Dwindling Clean Drinking Water.
Not much of an improvement
Re: (Score:3)
Citation of existing case of this happening needed.
Please read "2052" (Score:4, Interesting)
I recommend reading "2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years" (http://www.amazon.com/2052-Global-Forecast-Forty-Years/dp/1603584218).
It is written by the same guy who co-wrote the 1972 report "The Limits Of Growth" and deals with what humanity will likely do (globally) in the next 40 years (not what we SHOULD do, but what we will most likely do).
It is very interesting (and actually quite easy) to read and deals among other things with the expected results of climate change.
Re:Please read "2052" (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently, not so bad: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16058-prophesy-of-economic-collapse-coming-true.html [newscientist.com]
I have not read the 1972 book, but I think the main point was that economic growth has to stop at some point (because the planet won't support it) and we have to go for a steady-state economy. The problem with that is, while it is perfectly possible to do, it apparently still just doesn't fit into the heads of the people responsible.
Cap and trade is old school thinking. (Score:3)
I remember twenty years ago or so when Al Gore was stumping for more public transportation. Even then I thought what a ridiculous, old-school, political-suicide-inducing idea that was. Why the hell are we commuting in the first place, when so many of us could do what we do perfectly well from home (or some other location)? Instead of forcing people to ride buses like a bunch of proles, the government could create telecommuting initiatives. At least it would be a lot cheaper and bound to be more popular.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of jobs *cannot* be telecommuted to. In fact, I'd venture to say that *most* people can't telecommute to their jobs... only white-collar computer jobs. Construction, menial, farm/agriculture, and in-person services can't ... which, I dare say, probably accounts for more jobs than white-collar/tech jobs.
That said, our internet infrastructure has problems. I'm 10 minutes from 35,000 pop town and 20 minutes from 1,000,000 town and the best I can get is satellite or line of sight wireless.
I've seen this logic before (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time I read one of these climate change stories and the comments shouting "hoax!", I think back to a story. A professor was asked to study the atomic bomb yields and say whether or not it would ignite all the oxygen in the atmosphere and destroy the Earth. He came back a short time later and said, "No, of course not!"
After the test, his colleagues asked him how he arrived at his answer so quickly. He said, "Well, if I was wrong, who would've known?"
Ahem. Global warming and the self-destruction of mankind is a hoax!
Also, if a scientist came along with conclusive evidence that there was no such thing as global warming, he'd get a *LOT* more money. Think about it. How much would the oil companies pay for such information? There's no selfish reason to lie about this.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have reading comprehension problems? The quoted text says "on record". Go look back how far we've been keeping temperature records. Nobody was sitting around with thermometers in the Paleozoic era.
FWIW, Antarctica is still a desert.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention that the U.S. also wasn't around in the Mesozoic. It's not even 250 years old.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it really the warmest on record? On what record? The mercury thermometer record? Tree ring record? Ice core record? It was certainly warmer a little over 1000 years ago and one could consider them "on record".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it really the warmest on record? On what record?
Good question. In parts of Canada, that record is only 30 years. In other parts, it's 10 years. Yet it's being included in "climate data" as a pure baseline sample. Heck, where I live they don't even have a weather station for reporting the data. The temperature is now recorded and reported from 48KM away. My sister's place out in Alberta? 16KM away, in a gully, next to a stream, full of cold mountain water. Oh and it's shady until about 2pm.
Re: (Score:3)
The one with actual measurements. I'm guessing you knew that, though and are just faking ignorance because it helps you undermine the science.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, it's perfectly clear that the "on record" qualifier still applies to the immediately appended parenthetical about the 13 warmest years, goldfish brain.
Re: (Score:2)
"David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times that even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998) [...]"
Actually, the parenthetical claim is clearly saying that the absolute warmest years for the entire planet have been since 1998. The claim is an example of poor writing. Just because the meaning can be inferred does not mean that it should be necessary to do so. The possibility of inferring the meaning does not excuse the writer from the onus of clear and precise communication.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, "for the entire planet" means in contrast to specific parts of the planet which have not necessarily had their warmest years since 1998, as in global average temperature. Repeating "on record" every single time once the context has already been established would be bad writing.
Just because it is possible for you to deliberately smash the language centers of your brain that normally work just fine so as to manage to misunderstand perfectly clear English does not make it the writer's problem.
What are we doing about it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Never mind the trolls. And forget about our nominal leaders. They follow us, not the other way around. So, what are we going to do about climate change?
My house is a 70's era of about 2200 sq. ft., with a gas furnace, gas water heater (tank), and a 12 SEER A/C. The location is suburbia, and there's nothing I can do about that. It's be nice to be within walking distance of necessities, but that's just not happening. I've got us down to about $1500/year on energy costs. I understand that's very good. But I'd like to do more. I've already done most of the easy stuff. Most of the lights are CFLs. I set the thermostat at 82 in the summer and 70 in the winter. (I'd push that further, but the rest of the family whines too much when I do.) The house is well shaded by mature trees on the south side. But according to my calculations, half of our energy still goes towards heating and cooling. I have fuel efficient cars, and a plug in electric mower that I use as little as possible. I was very happy to bid farewell to the CRT.
I'm looking for paybacks of no more than 5 years, but that depends on price. I'll accept longer paybacks for cheap stuff. Ideas like putting in double pane windows filled with argon gas, roof vents, solar cells, solar water heaters, water recapture, and other expensive home remodeling notions simply aren't worth the cost. I heard that leaky ductwork can be a big waste of energy, but in this house, the ductwork is inside. The hallways have lower ceilings than the rooms. Anyway, it's a poor quality cookie cutter home. Hate to spend money on a piece of crap house. But if a bit of remodeling isn't worth doing, then knocking it down and starting over sure isn't worth doing. There are other things. I have a few 80%+ efficient computer power supplies [80plus.org], and some of those green power strips that automatically cut the power to peripherals when the main computer is off. For convenience I leave a computer running all the time, however it takes only 20 watts. It'd be better if I could get power management working in Linux. Even at only 20 watts, automatic suspend to disk could be a big saver if only it worked. Replaced a 40 watt fluorescent light fixture with the new 32 watt kind when the ballast went bad.
In any case, I have the feeling that's all "small ball". As a whole, our houses are poor and our cities are oblivious to all forms of transportation other than the almighty car. It's exasperating how much low hanging fruit we are ignoring. Automobile aerodynamics is a big one. Why isn't the underside of every car nice and smooth? Because no one looks at that part of the car. Why don't we have skirts on the wheels? Because they look "ugly"! A huge saver would be the electric car. I'm impatiently waiting for decent batteries. Would like to see at least 500 km capacity on a 15 minute charge, and able to last several thousand cycles.
Re:What are we doing about it? (Score:5, Informative)
Solar attic vent made a big difference to me. The air started blowing colder in seconds after it startted.
If you are in the south, EER matters more than SEER.
I found that wrapping the ductwork in radiant barrier was cheap and highly effective.
I mostly went straight to LED. 3000kelvin is a better quality light than 2900 (too orange).
The new 3500 kelvin CFL light from Home depot (red box) is nice. Real white- not blue- light.
My bill is down from 1500kwh to 1243 kwh.
I recently bought a "Spinray" solar panel. These only make sense at $500 a panel. With federal tax credit they currently run $1000. They were $700 with credit when I bought mine but they shot up in price.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if your (or the previous similar comment's, or the original poster's) interpretation made sense - which it doesn't - what amazes me is how perfect an example these posts are of the usual bullshit arguments against climate change.
You can't question the facts, so you question the grammar of the person stating the facts. I believe that's called an "ad hominem"...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's perfectly clear that the "on record" qualifier still applies to the immediately appended parenthetical
...unless, of course, one is being completely disingenuous or is in total denier-al.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically it would have to be read as only the hottest in the hundred or so years we have records for. But it was written such that most people will read it with the meaning of 'hottest evar'
The context of "on record" was clearly established. The only part of the context that changed -- from hottest year in the U.S. to hottest years for the whole planet -- was also clearly established. Most people do not have goldfish brains and can keep track of this context for six whole words.
So, only people who wanted to invent a reason to complain would read it that way. Everyone else knows that the author did not suddenly, mid-sentence, despite already qualifying their claims with "on record", expand the context to the entire history of our rock ball which was at one point molten.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Insightful)
The sentence says this year is the warmest on record for the US. It says the past 13 are the warmest period for the whole planet, no mention of recorded or time at all.
Actually, you're just showing off a poor understanding of the English language. The actual text in question is:
... even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998), ...
Anyone with minimal competence in (written) English will understand that the parenthesized part is an addendum to what came before, and what came before included "on record". So that "on record" would normally be understood to apply to the parenthesized extension of the sentence.
Of course, such a misreading could be due to ignorance or malice. But it's fairly common to make "mistakes" like this for propaganda purposes. I suspect that this was the case here. In particular, I suspect that the parent comment was written by someone (Baloroth 3270816) understood the statement quite well, but decided to ignore the normal reading of the typical English speaker, and claim that it said something other than what it actually said. This was done for the usual propaganda reasons.
(It can be useful to study propaganda techniques; it gives you the ability to both see through them and also use them for your own purposes. ;-)
Now see, This is why you are a boob (Score:3, Insightful)
even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998)
Now see, statements like this are what make me so wary of trusting anything out of the mouths of the more fanatical members of the environmental movement. Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era,
What part of "warmest year on record" is unclear to you?
What part of the temperature during earlier eras where we weren't on top of the food chain is relevant?
The sad thing is that most reporters don't even question this patently obvious bullshit anymore
The sad thing is that many slashdotters wouldn't question your patently obviously boring rhetoric.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost all the problems facing mankind and the earth are caused by the same thing. The solution is easy to see but difficult to get people at embrace. There are simply too damned many people on this globe. The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size. We need to trim down the population of the world. At the present growth rate of the population, we will again double in another 58 years. Instead of trying methods to change the climate which will probably not go the way scientists plan, we need an
Not even close (Score:3, Insightful)
We are currently at around seven billion people, starvation we see currently is from political, not technical issues. We do not have too many people, we have some people that suffer needlessly - an entirely different problem.
The upper growth is around 10 billion [ted.com] people, after that the population will remain fairly stable. There's no reason to think that with technological improvements in obtaining food we could not support that population indefinitely, assuming some vast plague does not take us down a l
Re:Not even close (Score:5, Insightful)
current warming trends would help us with more arable land
Only if we are willing to engage in deforestation that would exacerbate the problem. Did you get these ideas out of a Big Oil coloring book, or what? Meanwhile, our existing arable land is showing massive crop failures for this year, and food is already 20-33% more expensive than it was last year. As it turns out, when you have record highs and lows in the same place in the same year, there's no crops that want to grow under those conditions. There is no plant whatsoever that likes temperatures over 100 degrees (though many plants have adaptations to permit them to avoid damage in those conditions) and no plant that can handle those temperatures likes to be frozen. In addition, there has been inadequate rainfall in our existing farmland.
Re:Not even close (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider looking at population through the prism of a world without fossil fuels and other natural resources. These fossil fuels pretty much make modern agriculture what it is today. It is hard for us to picture a world in which human beings become less capable and have less technology because it is not something we have observed in our lifetimes. However, it can happen, and currently we have no mitigating plan to deal with the dwindling availability of fossil fuels. Once fossil fuels become too expensive for agriculture, we could all be in big trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to trim down the population of the world
I think the Earth can support this many people with sane practices. I don't think we're using them.
We cannot continue to reproduce like rats and rabbits.
This, I agree with.
Re: (Score:3)
In nations where women have good access to education and birth control and where basic infrastructure is sound, the birth rate is lower than the replacement rate.
The best way to curb population growth is to improve the lives of women and to improve overall public infrastructure.
Laws like Chinas one child law lead to abhorrent acts and an unstable situation with a radically skewed demographic that will most certainly end in tragedy. Much, much better to improve education and access to birth control and impro
Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the part where the year is not yet finished
Yes, and it's still summer. Guess you missed that part. It's only going to get hotter. Also, that's totally fucking irrelevant, because it's about how hot it's gotten, not just about the average temperature for the year.
every single Warmist Chicken-Little alarmist such as yourself proclaiming weather is the same as climate
Show me where I said that. Come on, show me. Oh, you can't? That's because I didn't say that. You're a liar.
(but not when winters are colder! No sir, then it means nothing)
Record winter lows are a predicted sign of global warming. I'm not surprised you don't know that, because you are clearly willfully ignorant.
all attempts to claim runaway behavior from existing climate change have been proved to be bunk
We're not talking about runaway behavior right now, we're talking about AGW. Although, now that you mention it, ice on land is melting faster than it's being replenished, faster than projections, and faster than in recorded history.
your high priests
Your attempts to demonize science? They fail.
along with your high priests inability to predict anything about climate changes that actually happen going forward
And you fail again. In fact, record highs and lows are predicted. Ice melting is predicted, and it happening faster than predicted is not a cause for you to celebrate. All it means is that even scientists are optimists.
why should we treat you and your disciples
I have disciples now? Awesome. I hope I don't get nailed up. You are hereby cordially invited to eat my body before my death. Pucker up.
It all started when you claimed AGW was based on "science", a curious science that silenced detractors and ignored requests to review raw data
And you lie again. The raw data has been available to anyone in a position to understand it all along. That doesn't include you. Detractors have not been silenced; Big Oil has spent vast amounts of money on studies trying to find some support for their assertions, the same assertions you share. Only, now even Big Oil is admitting that AGW is a real thing. Now, they're only arguing that it is not as serious as it is made out to be. As a predictable next step, they will announce that no, we're actually all screwed. Then they'll announce that they have some kind of solution. I don't need to be prescient, I only need to remember what you have forgotten: the lessons of history.
and you wonder why more reasonable heads fail to support you now.
Well, no, in fact, more reasonable people (who are more than just a head, this ain't Futurama — today, "head" more commonly means drug user, but I already knew you were hopelessly out of touch before you said that) actually do support "me" (or in fact, the science of AGW) and you don't. I already know you're not reasonable from your history here, but I decided to respond to you anyway because I had time and I didn't want someone to think that a failure to respond to your inanity was due to believing it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's exactly people like you that make me utterly ignore, and in fact work against when possible anyone of your dour faith.
So because some people whose reasoning you feel is inadequate support position X, you assume that position X must be wrong and you will work agains it.
So can you enlighten me as to how exactly you've come to the conclusion that you should come out against AGW rather than for, since there is plenty of bad reasoning by on both sides.
After all, humanity as a whole has prospered when the ov
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm ... If that's what those evil AGW "scientists" have been doing, they've been remarkably incompetent at the job. Every discussion I see on the topic on any of the various forums that I follow seems to be dominated by he AGW "deniers". The scientists seem to have utterly failed to silence any of their detractors, even in "geek" forums like /. where you'd expect that they'd have the upper hand.
Actually, I'd question whether the climate scientists have even been trying to silence anyone. Is there muc
Re: (Score:2)
So? If it's already the warmest on record, how could that change over the course of the remaining year?
WTF?
That's your argument? That's what you pin your dumb fucking rant on? Hahahaha.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems odd that a theory is able to be validate by any condition, the models predict everything happening.
This is a typical response by someone who doesn't understand what was said versus what they imagined. The models do predict these types of event, however.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:4, Informative)
Bear in mind, those years where during a period where normal cycles should have been flat of slight cooler.
That's why they are more proof of Man Made Climate change.
It's also important to remind people like that because some conservatives make the bald face lie that the last decade or so was cooler. When presented with the actual facts, they refuse to reconsider their opinion. So we need to counter the people spreading that lie as well.
Could it be more precise? probably. OTOH if you want that level or precision there are plenty of excellent scientific papers on the subject
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I musta missed the last few years then, when was it a middle Carboniferous era after 1998?
Re: (Score:2)
They just gonna use this as an excuse to push some new law which will be (again, same as last ... well, just look at last 15 years that's enough) in their interest(*) and for which you gonna pay up. By they I mean these centralized governments we have today. The others just follow that, even when they are not a part of it.
If not, the centralized governments public relationship office, namely, mainstream media, wouldn't bombard people with these sort of thing all the time. They aren't doing it because they l
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you name a single person who has advocating abolishing all industry?
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh if mankind doesn't abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!
The sad thing is that most reporters don't even question this patently obvious bullshit anymore, lest someone label them a GW denier.
What is even more sad is that there is currently no realistic plan for how to deal with the fact that we are currently spending resources like coal, oil, and natural gas significantly faster than they regenerate. (Since these resources generate on geological timescales, not human timescales.) Even if we don't care about the environment, once these resources are depleted, say goodbye to a high-tech human civilization unless we have developed alternative energy sources.
(Note that we will probably not be able
Re: (Score:2)
What is even more sad is that there is currently no realistic plan for how to deal with the fact that we are currently spending resources like coal, oil, and natural gas significantly faster than they regenerate.
Use something else. As fossil fuel products increase in price, alternatives will become attractive. The gasoline car might be scrapped for an electric car or it might run on biofuels. Just going up in price will make a number of alternatives realistic which aren't realistic now.
Not sad, smart (Score:2)
What is even more sad is that there is currently no realistic plan for how to deal with the fact that we are currently spending resources like coal, oil, and natural gas significantly faster than they regenerate.
Sure there is. We use the resources we have for the next few hundred years, but over time technologies like solar and hydrogen and nuclear power become more and more reliable and competitive with extracting natural resources from the ground.
It is inevitable this will happen, what is sad is that som
Speaking of hyperbole... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'm a lot sicker of people talking about "crazy-eyed alarmists" preaching that "the fucking end is nigh." Who, specifically, are these "crazy-eyed alarmists" and where are they making such predictions? I know who it isn't. It isn't climate scientists. It isn't the IPCC. It isn't even prominent non-scientists like Al Gore who have popularized the concerns of climate scientists. So who are they? Where are they preaching that I've never heard them?
And while we are at it, who is insisting that we need to "abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!"? Again, I know who it isn't. It isn't climate scientists. It isn't the IPCC. It isn't even prominent non-scientists like Al Gore who have popularized the concerns of climate scientists. So who are they?
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzzzt! Yes, I've read the "hockey stick" papers. I've read the IPCC reports. But it sounds like you haven't, because there's of that crazy hyperbole there (if you claim otherwise, quote it)
Thanks for playing. Care to try again?
Re:Speaking of hyperbole... (Score:4, Insightful)
And these concerns are eminently reasonable. There is evidence of species loss, and loss of many species would be a bad thing to be sure, and I can see how a taxonomist would consider that apocalyptic. But seriously, do you regard that as "the end [being] nigh?" And if reasonable concerns about massive displacement of populations due to rising seas and famine due to disruption of food production in currently highly productive turn out to be true, I think that it is reasonable to expect that civilization would be at risk in many countries. After all, there are some countries where civilization already seems to have fallen apart do to political conflicts--severe weather, large numbers of refugees, and interruption of food supplies might tend to aggravate those problems, wouldn't you think? Bad things to be sure...but do you really think that if those predictions come true over the next century or so, then "the end is nigh"
The words "could be" acknowledge that there is uncertainty. But once again, they are very reasonable concerns. This is, after all, an area where water supplies are already stressed, and the models, however imperfect, predict greater weather extremes. Besides, these are local problems. Would you say that inability to irrigate part of one state constitutes "the end is nigh?"
Re: (Score:2)
Now see, statements like this are what make me so wary of trusting anything out of the mouths of the more fanatical members of the environmental movement. Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era, when Antarctica was a desert (or even during the Paleozoic era, when it was a swamp)?
While I agree with the premise that the Earth has been a lot warmer in the past, your examples fail to account for continental drift.
Antarctica wasn't was not at the South Pole during the Mesozoic. Even when it did drift South, it didn't actually freeze over until it separated from South America and was surrounded by the circumpolar currents.
In the Paleozoic, Antarctica did not yet exist as a continent. I don't know where all the parts were or what pre-Pangea land masses they were attached to.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Informative)
The 13 years are those for which we have records. When the Earth was covered with lava, I don't think anyone had a thermometer, smarty pants.
The vast majority of scientists in the applicable field believe the Earth is warming. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.
The vast majority of those scientists believe that the warming is being significantly accelerated by human processes, and that the trend line is far sharper than standard climatic cycles would ordinary produce. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.
Most outcome predictions based on the rate of change we're seeing include massive effects on humanity. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.
But sadly, you are our problem. People who, despite growing evidence, fail to grasp the urgency of the matter will be our collective downfall. Even though I tend to get very frustrated at the ignorance, I've pretty much just come to accept it. The thing that really ticks me off is that my children will suffer because of people like you, spreading the "it's not that bad" schtick.
And by the way, industry can mean a lot of things. A clean energy industry would be awesome.
Hey retard (Score:2)
"Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era, when Antarctica was a desert (or even during the Paleozoic era, when it was a swamp)? Hotter than when earth's surface was made of *molten lava*? Really?"
No you fucking moron, its the warmest since they started keeping records not since the planet coalesced.
Re: (Score:2)
"they" are telling us not to look at the weather ("boy it's 'whatever' today"), and to look at the climate data ("ooh look at that trend line" )
If you think "they" are saying anything else you are listening to the wrong "they".
Re: (Score:3)
With highish first derivatives of temperature over time being on the order of a couple of degrees C per millennium, and second derivatives operating on the order of .1 degree per millennium per millennium. To treat 1800-2015 as the same as -10000 BC to 1 AD is crazy.
Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this (Score:5, Insightful)
We'va also had 5 majour extinxion events during those millions of years. And all of them had something to do with major shifts in climate, caused by external factors: the big meteorite did not kill the dinosaurs. The nuclear winter which followed did.
Large, fast changes in climate don't matter much to life. It'll recover. We may not. Or we may, but our civilisation is a goner. Or maybe, if we are extra-lucky, we get to only have a major economic crisis. Something like the industrial revolution in reverse.
Global warming is a serious threat. And we will --those of us below fifty -- have to face its consequences directly. We can only hope that it won't be as bad as the scientists think it'll be, and that it much, much worse than what you see in news.
Re: (Score:3)
No. More like actual risks of famine and drought. In fucking developed countries.
Also, I don't like heat very much, but that is pretty minor ;)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's a natural record. No one said human record. If dinosaurs kept records, would you not count those either?
I can just see it now ... New York Times bestseller: The Dinosaur Diaries - all the dirt, all the scandal, everything you wanted to know about those Diplodoci next door!
It's fun debates like this which undermine both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's science, not hyperbole. (Score:5, Informative)
thank you, at least someone gets it. We have only been keeping detailed weather records for around 100 years and now were supposed to believe that this is the hottest its ever been, thats crazy.
No, he doesn't "get it". Have you never heard of paleoclimatology? Scientists down in Antarctica have sampled cores of ice that have been trapped for millennia, and have been able to correlate the temperatures of the ice as well as trapped atmospheric particles with the time they were trapped. From them, they have determined an approximation of the average global temperature back through time, as well as estimates of things like the percentage of Earth's surface covered by wetlands based on methane levels indicating decomposed bacteria.
The Antarctic ice sheet has a pretty good record going all the way back to the previous ice age and a bit earlier. It's not like an almanac, where they can ask "what was the temperature on July 4th, 4004 BC", but they can see slow moving trends. For example, they can see a small dip that correlates to the Little Ice Age, and a more dramatic dip from an earlier ice age.
And the ice sheets aren't the only evidence. Geological records also contain clues about the earlier weather, in the forms of rock scratchings where they were pushed by glaciers, glacial moraines, ancient dried lake beds, etc. And the distribution of fossils can show where climates went from "hospitable" to "inhospitable" to certain forms of ancient life.
It's just the kind of data you need to have if you are trying to figure out if this decade is warmer than all previous decades in the last 40,000 years.
There is nothing crazy about it. It's just science.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You say climate change, I say beach front property. No problem here.
The problem is that the boardwalk is in Utah, but the waterline is still in California.
Re: (Score:2)
Government and private investment in renewable and clean(er) energy sources is having a larger than expected (though really quite small) impact on carbon emissions (within the US).
Better?
Re: (Score:2)
They got everything, and they destroyed the future out of greed and selfishness.
In their defense, that didn't happen. It's just a fad to blame them for everything. Looking over garbage like this, I'm tempted to write a parody book where the Boomers get blamed for everything wrong that has ever or could ever happen, real, imagined, or fantasized about.
The universe turned out imperfect? God was a lazy ass boomer watching TV when he created the universe. All pain and suffering in this universe flow from the Howdy Doody Show.
Re: (Score:3)
No it is a case were a particular generation, due to demographic factors, always got its way, and upset the intergenerational transfers, where education must be balanced with retirements and unemployment. The baby boom passing through the system tilted it always towards them. They got their education cheap, they got inflation as wage earner which allowed them to buy property for cheap, and now that they retire, they force deflation and cuts to education to pay for their retirement.
Their parents, on the cont
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that means his point is still valid, even if sentence isn't. You on the other hand either have no point (was making a joke/just commenting about his gram error) or don't understand rather simple, obviously true concepts, such as IT'S HOTTER than any other time since human beings have recorded the temperature.
Since you can't argue with that basic fact, you can inste