Worrying Rise in Global CO2 Forecast for 2019 (theguardian.com) 191
The level of climate-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is forecast to rise by a near-record amount in 2019, according to the Met Office. From a report: The increase is being fuelled by the continued burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests, and will be particularly high in 2019 due to an expected return towards El Nino-like conditions. This natural climate variation causes warm and dry conditions in the tropics, meaning the plant growth that removes CO2 from the air is restricted. Levels of the greenhouse gas have not been as high as today for 3-5m years, when the global temperature was 2-3C warmer and the sea level was 10-20 metres (32 to 64 feet) higher. Climate action must be increased fivefold to limit warming to the 1.5C rise above pre-industrial levels that scientists advise, according to the UN. But the past four years have been the hottest on record and global emissions are rising again after a brief pause.
Do you have a sibling? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your genes are elsewhere in the world even if you don't reproduce. If you have a sibling then they have about half your genes, and if they have two kids most of those pass along. If you have two siblings then the fraction of you out there is even higher. And one can go back up the ladder, looking at cousins.
So basically you are all out there and statistically at least half your genes are in someone if you have a lot of family.
You are therefore unnecessary as a vessel for the genes to keep going. But if
Re: (Score:2)
meant to say 1/4
Re: (Score:2)
You share most of your genes with every random stranger.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Go stick your head in a plastic bag, and tie it tight.
Enjoy the CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a dumbass circlejerking moron
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't add butter or salt or else you lack basic altruism and you are part of the problem. If you already don't have butter or salt you need to forfeit popcorn or else you are a denialist and part of the problem.
It's never enough.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course butter. Realy butter, from freshly squeezed cows and salt. Lots of it. In a styrofoam container that keeps the stuff warm and doesn't burn my fingers on the damn hot butter.
Screw the world. I'm old. I don't have kids. And I'm tired of trying to teach people. I tried to inform, I was laughed at, mocked and eventually threatened. What for? It's not like I need this planet more than maybe 30 more years, if that. I'm fairly sure that it's gonna last that long. After that, why should I give a fuck anym
Re: (Score:2)
Go easy on the salt. Remember your blood pressure.
Haven't you heard? We're approaching the singularity when our consciousness will be uploaded to a Roomba, and then we'll live forever.
[And let me save you all some time: Yes, it is appropriate that my consciousness is uploaded to a Roomba because I suck.]
Re: (Score:2)
So don't count living much past the warranty.
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to live forever? Seriously, it takes the joy out of it.
If I knew I live forever, I'd kill myself.
Re: (Score:2)
mmmmmm butter. *homer drool*
I understand the sentiment. I am not so far as to say "screw the world" but I am tired of being shamed for "not trying hard enough" because I only do what I can afford or ridiculed for not having the same fervor as the AC's spamming vitriol. If that means screw the world then fuck it. Screw the world.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Among some of the great excerpts:
Despite the fact that human life expectancy has risen, diseases have been eliminated, terrorism deaths have declined, income distribution has risen, and the world is a better place than it ever has been, a sense of dystopian doom pervades Davos.
Unfortunately, reasonable analysis and critique like this is labelled as "far right", "denier", and from a "conservative rag" even here in Canada. Even those willing to admit they have a point will say "yeah things are great now, but the point is climate change will destroy our fut
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's lazy to say that the world and humanity will not end (literally no one is suggesting the world will end, and the worst predictions do not predict humanity will end). It's also lazy to say that reasonable analysis is labelled as far right. The quote you posted can't be debated.
Taken to their logical conclusion, increasing population, increasing CO2 output, increasing pollution, and environmental change suggest that sometime soon things are going to reach a tipping point in the broadest sense, financial
Re: (Score:2)
Don't add butter or salt or else you ... or else you mask the flavour of the freshly popped corn. If you don't know what I'm talking about then you need to buy fresh corn, pop it and eat it right away.
Re: (Score:2)
mmmmm popcorn
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Idiot
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and just like back then, no humans need to survive on the planet.
It will be paradise.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, misread that. I thought it's the usual 300 million year argument. Yes, in the Pliocene it was actually a bit warmer too. And the sea levels were about 15 meters higher.
Well, nothing to worry here, I'm located well above that. Hope so are you. Sucks for the couple hundred millions who ain't, but, hey, as the Pliocene shows, we don't need 8 billion people to survive as a species, so who cares, right?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sad thing is the crazy people who actually worry about this don't realize they are the butt of a colossal joke and actually get upset when you try to explain it to them.
What's funny, and I live in the great lakes area is that a few years ago they were going on about how the lakes were going to dry up and the water levels of the lakes had never been so low! They had been lower several times and in some cases for decades. Few years later, you had the same people screaming that it was global warming that caused the lakes to not freeze over - instead of a "stuck" high pressure system. Few years later it was so cold that we still had ice on the lakes in June and July, that wa
Remember Comrade (Score:2, Informative)
Zat is weather not climate change. Da ?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure thing, that's what they keep telling everyone. Of course if they were really serious, they'd be pushing to modernize parts of the world where slash & burn farming is still the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
This - go and read the original IPCC reports. They are online, you can download them for yourself.
Almost every prediction made has been falsified. The temperature is nowhere near what they predicted, way outside the 99% confidence interval. And yet they are right this time?
Let me know when they are consistently right. At this point, they will need to make a lot of correct predictions in a row - after all, random chance should make them right half the time anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The temperature is nowhere near what they predicted
Strange, are that the reports from this web site: https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ [www.ipcc.ch] ??
Or are you talking about a different IPCC?
Re: (Score:1)
You have record cold Niagara falls is frozen https://www.accuweather.com/en... [accuweather.com]
Very first paragraph: "It's that time of year when the Niagara Falls transform into a majestic winter wonderland. - sure sounds like that's unusual. NOT!
Record Snowfalls https://www.miamiherald.com/la... [miamiherald.com]
55 years - for that day. Of course the temperature was actually above average for that day, too. Warmer, with more precipitation - gee, what does that sound like?
Power outages in Europe from the snow https://www.express.co.uk/news... [express.co.uk]
Funny how the BBC video in that article mentions nothing of what the headline claims. Odd, ehh?
Meanwhile we have record heat in Australia, and a sunny 40F in Anchorage, Alaska.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope I only live long enough to be still around to see it.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope I only live long enough to be still around to see it.
I for one hope I die in my sleep or in the middle of a massive orgasm before that day happens, because by the time the wealthy-and-in-charge actually sit up and take notice, things are likely to be well and rightly fucked in a way we've yet to imagine.
Re: (Score:3)
I want to do die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to do die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
You got +1 funny, but you deserve all the pluses for insightful. That's the best metaphor one could possibly imagine for the climate crisis. You win all the internets.
They never cared - except to scare for power. (Score:3)
They never believed it - neither the ones that claim to nor the ones that claim not to.
If those who claimed to believe it really did believe it, they'd be working to abort pro-natalist policies, which raise the world population (creating more users of fossil-fuel energy) and other policies that move people to places with higher standards of living (where each uses far more energy and fossil-fuels).
Instead they're encouraging the migration of masses of low-inco
Unlikely (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But Ocasio-Cortez said the world is going to end in 12 years, so why do we all care?
Re:Who writes this shit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who writes this shit? I'm tired of it.
People who want to avoid a devastating future where million die due to an eternal famine while millions more flood into nations further from the equator. I think everyone is going to be tired of that very quickly. Vote for people who will do something to avoid this future and you won't have to read about it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misspelled "People who, for reasons of politics or gullibility, are considering the latest Sky-Is-Falling assertion from the Ecomarxist left (that has been peddling various flavors of precisely this kind of disaster-porn since the mid 1960s) as credible." ?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you asking me what you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I thought you were out of grade school based on your user#. My apologies.
Most people past post-elementary age would understand the construction of "I think you misspelled X?" as:
a) a rhetorical question
b) a basic syntax where the composer is inquiring (thus the "?") if a fact is true
c) a common passive-aggressive internet meme that criticizes something one person says by framing an alternative opinion as a trivial spelling mistake
d) all of the above
Next time I post a reply to you, I'll definitely tr
Re: (Score:2)
Most people past post-elementary age would understand that only questions end with a question mark.
FTFY. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people past post-elementary age would understand the difference between a direct question and a rhetorical question.
"Put a question mark at the end of a sentence that is, in fact, a direct question. (Sometimes writers will simply forget.) Rhetorical questions (asked when an answer is not really expected), by the way, are questions and deserve to end with a question mark: How else should we end them, after all?"
http://guidetogrammar.org/gram... [guidetogrammar.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously haven't read the science...
The equator roughly speaking stays the same. What happens is that cold areas get a little warmer.
So net expected migration would be away from the equator because the rest of the world gets a little nicer, not because the equator gets worse. (Except for flooding, which the jury is still out on)
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahaha! Yeah, sure buddy. Talk about clueless. The tropics are projected to heat up to levels where it would be near uninhabitable.
Re: (Score:2)
So net expected migration would be away from the equator because the rest of the world gets a little nicer, not because the equator gets worse. (Except for flooding, which the jury is still out on)
It's not just surface temperature and the weather feeling nice/not nice for people.
With coral reefs dying out due to change in water temperature and acidity, you should expect migration away from many areas where this causes food security to be affected, independently from the distance to the equator.
I don't know if Indonesia and the Indochina region count as "near the equator" for this conversation, but I'd say that mass migration in such populous countries will cause a lot more suffering than what happen
Re: (Score:2)
Canadians are the worst offenders (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We get upset at CEOs who only care about the next quarters profits but as a species we rarely look ahead more than a year. Case in point everyone knew the Grand-banks fisheries off Canada's east coast were on the verge of collapse and yet we fished them right up to the point of nearly wiping out the cod there. Canadians dump more than 22 tons of GHG per person into the atmosphere (and BTW that's not counting the rotting pine forests). We beat the Americans by over 10% and yet we are doing almost nothing. If you can't get a well educated population that actually thinks climate change is a problem to change their ways there is no hope.
I get that fishing could be stopped but I don't see what the proposed solution to rotting pine forests is. In fact I hadn't heard of the problem but when I researched a few minutes what I think you're refering to is a beetle infestation. But it looks like that is not going to be a problem soon as found here: https://phys.org/news/2016-04-... [phys.org]
More nuclear power please. (Score:1)
I will believe that the governments of the world are taking global warming seriously when they start building nuclear power plants like they did in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. There is no power source that is lower in carbon per energy produced except perhaps hydroelectricity. There is nothing safer than nuclear power based on deaths per energy produced.
Don't tell me that nuclear power is too expensive because the governments of the world are certainly willing to spend gobs of money on worthless wind, so
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't tell me that nuclear power is too expensive because the governments of the world are certainly willing to spend gobs of money on worthless wind, solar, and other "green" energy. They are also certainly willing to spend gobs of money fighting over the scraps of carbon left on the table."
Green energy is not worthless. And the idea that it is heavily subsidised is out of date -- Coal, for example, in the US is subsidised and most of it would not be viable without.
You are right about nuclear power in oth
Re: (Score:2)
Green energy is not worthless. And the idea that it is heavily subsidised is out of date -- Coal, for example, in the US is subsidised and most of it would not be viable without.
You are right about nuclear power in other ways, I think. There is a case for it. But, it's probalby too late now. Nuclear power plants take a long time develop and much of the energy grid is being re-worked so not require single large sources (i.e. make it better for renewables).
Guess we are all dead then. Green energy isn't worthless...there is just far too little of it and its always in the wrong place at the wrong time. The reason folks argue for nuclear is that its the only solution that scales. If you are confused about this fact, do some math and see what it would take to make even an 80% renewable power generation. Then remember that there is another problem called fuel production that is just as big as electricity and can ONLY be solved with nuclear. That's why when fo
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But, green energy production has grown massively and consistently out performs expectations for its growth. Nuclear technology has not. It's difficult to argue that it scales; theoretically, yes, but in practice no.
Alarming rise in emmisions. (Score:1)
I'm looking forward to my property values going up as the beach will be much closer with a 30ft increase.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong, ours are not going down, the rate of increase is slowing. I'm looking forward to harvesting the fresh water from your skull like a coconut. Ahh, dystopia, the life Republicans truly deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
mitigate or adapt (Score:1)
Forests burning??? (Score:2)
Okay, I can see where putting fossilized carbon back into the atmosphere is a bad thing. Hence the drive to reduce burning of coal, oil, and natural gas (well, except that noone is pushing for that to stop, they're cheering it on).
But getting excited about burning wood, which was NOT fossilized carbon, but carbon removed over the last few decades????
C'mon guys. If AGW fanatics want to be taken seriously, at least stick to the science - which is all about putting fossilized carbon back into circulation..
Correlation is not causation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sun activity is actually fairly low. The most recent peak was in the 80's, and it's dropped a bit since then. In the same time, temperature has gone up rather dramatically.
Where is the CO2 coming from? The oceans release it as the temperature rise
And where did all the CO2 from fossil fuel burning end up ?
Here's an exercise for you: find the numbers for total amount of oil, coal, and gas that the world has used in the last century. For each of those, calculate how much CO2 is produced by burning them. Add up, and compare total CO2 with increase in atmosphere.
Re: (Score:3)
We couldn't have scripted it better. Here is your question answered by a Nobel laureate in physics.
https://youtu.be/SXxHfb66ZgM?t=1428 [youtu.be]
Give it a rest (Score:1)
Stop all the alarmism. It doesn't matter anymore. Acosio-Cortez has already told us that the world is going to end in 12 years, so what's the point. Live it up people. Party like it's 2029.
China and third world pollution needs to be cut (Score:2)
The Earths' failsafe plan (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You are a blithering alarmist circle-jerking imbecile
Time to get serious (Score:3)
And end all fossil fuel depreciation, exemptions, exclusions, and subsidies.
Everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
We need a combination of Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geo-thermal, and Nuke power.
Yeah. So not going to be fixed (Score:2)
India continues to climb.
America climbed a bit this year, and will go down after this, but, the question is, how much?
Amongst all this, are the far lefites that continue to give green lights to China's massive expansion and then at the same time, does all they can to stop the one real solution, which is the use of Nuclear power.
Until ppl take this SERIOUSLY and understand that REAL SOLUTIONS ARE NE
Not fixed, as you keep denying what the cause is. (Score:2)
What a surprise, the American apologist blames China to deflect attention away from America.
Americans are so much more dirty than Chinese it's not even close.
China could literally burn twice as much coal just to spite you, and their per person CO2 would still be less than yours.
Just put it all in a big pile and set it on fire. Just for fun. They would still be cleaner than you.
You already know this of course. Just as you already know America is far far worse than just about every country in the world wh
I see almost straight line (Score:2)
From 1960 to now.
Have in mind that in 1950 we produced as much CO2 by burning as we breath out now.
China and India are main contributors (Score:2)
China and India are main contributors to increase emissions in 2010s. While the Western world actually stabilized emissions, the emissions from these two skyrocketed due to economic boom.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Could you provide citation for our President being a traitor? Not taking the piss, just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Not only can it not provide a citation, we've now learned that before Hillary used the Russian collusion script against Trump, it was used against McCain in the 2008 election. The retards didn't even bother to change the name of most of the players.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, they sure live in their own reality, I give you that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it funny you only mention Fox news as if the outlets you like are paragons of truth and fact. Meanwhile, we have had wonderfully bad examples of how bad the news and "journalists" are as they do everything to push narrative over fact.
This isn't a defense of Fox news.
Re: (Score:2)
Converts? We're talking religion now?
Re: (Score:2)
This makes it sound like you want this to happen? I'm not the only one that wants to see the world burn? Could it be?
Re: (Score:1)
When the seas rise 20 meters and put all of the nerd habitat known as silicon valley under water then it is news for nerd - learn to swim or learn to stop making shit up.
Nerds != tech (Score:3)
Re:News for Nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this tech news again?
I understand its an important issue, but tech related it is not.
Slashdot is "news for nerds and things that matter". Climate change matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters. Timely news source for technology related news with a heavy slant towards Linux and Open Source issues.
In recent years it seems the site owners want to bury this and instead are bent on turning this into a national enquirer.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this tech news again?
I understand its an important issue, but tech related it is not.
Slashdot is "news for nerds and things that matter". Climate change matters.
But it's an AND statement. Let's look at the truth table:
(news for nerds) AND (things that matter) == ??? (FALSE) AND (TRUE) == FALSE
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that there is a significant amount of debate about environmental science, if various scientists have credibility, public policy about what can and ought to be done that can be discussed. Some of us find it interesting, and want to hear what other Slashdotters have to say.
If you read the headline and don't think it should be on Slashdot, don't click, and that will send a message to the admins that people don't want to read these. If you comment, they will see it show up in the number of comments and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)