Glacial Melting In Antarctica May Become Irreversible, NASA-Funded Study Suggests (theguardian.com) 327
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A Nasa-funded study found instability in the Thwaites glacier meant there would probably come a point when it was impossible to stop it flowing into the sea and triggering a 50cm sea level rise. Other Antarctic glaciers were likely to be similarly unstable. The Thwaites glacier, part of the West Antarctic ice sheet, is believed to pose the greatest risk for rapid future sea level rise. Research recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal found it was likely to succumb to instability linked to the retreat of its grounding line on the seabed that would lead to it shedding ice faster than previously expected.
The researchers found a precise estimate of how much ice the glacier would shed in the next 50 to 800 years was not possible due to unpredictable climate fluctuations and data limitations. However, 500 simulations of different scenarios pointed to it losing stability. This increased uncertainty about future sea level rise but made the worst-case scenarios more likely. A complete loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet would be expected to increase global sea levels by about five meters (16ft), causing coastal cities around the world to become submerged.
The researchers found a precise estimate of how much ice the glacier would shed in the next 50 to 800 years was not possible due to unpredictable climate fluctuations and data limitations. However, 500 simulations of different scenarios pointed to it losing stability. This increased uncertainty about future sea level rise but made the worst-case scenarios more likely. A complete loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet would be expected to increase global sea levels by about five meters (16ft), causing coastal cities around the world to become submerged.
Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Milankovitch cycles no longer cause glaciations. (Score:5, Informative)
Ss there's no reason to assume that there will be another glaciation. The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, there were trees at the south pole. [theguardian.com]
Unless there's something really important that we don't understand, we are at the start of a long melt, that will not reverse.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless there's something really important that we don't understand
CO2 levels are associated with higher temperatures but in the fossil record they follow the temperature pulse; they don't precede it.
This is as a theory of a vibrant biosphere would predict.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless there's something really important that we don't understand, we are at the start of a long melt, that will not reverse.
This is true, if human actions don't change. For better or worse, humans are now the ones in control of the geology of the earth. It is entirely possible that we will change our course of action and actually address the climate crisis.
Or not. There are still plenty of people who refuse to admit that climate change is real, let alone who are willing to accept even the slightest inconvenience to themselves to address it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice Gish gallop there.
Irreversible (Score:3)
Trump was right : we need a wall (Score:2)
I've been wondering (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I've been wondering (Score:4, Informative)
If there is a growing blanket of CO2 over the Earth and the Earth is heating as a result, what does that do to the rate of diffusion of heat from the core of the Earth to space?
The heat of the core diffuses to the surface, and gets combined with the surface heating from the Sun. At that point it doesn't really matter where the heat was coming from. All that matters is the total amount.
The energy from core to surface is about 47 TW.
The energy from Sun to surface is about 173000 TW.
As you can see, geothermal energy is an insignificant contributor.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If there is a growing blanket of CO2 over the Earth and the Earth is heating as a result, what does that do to the rate of diffusion of heat from the core of the Earth to space?
The heat of the core diffuses to the surface, and gets combined with the surface heating from the Sun. At that point it doesn't really matter where the heat was coming from. All that matters is the total amount.
The energy from core to surface is about 47 TW.
The energy from Sun to surface is about 173000 TW.
As you can see, geothermal energy is an insignificant contributor.
Is the 17300 TW the energy staying at the surface of the Earth? Does that include reflected energy according to the albedo of the Earth? In any case, the contribution to surface effects of 47 TW would seem to be negligible.
Re:I've been wondering (Score:4, Informative)
Is the 17300 TW the energy staying at the surface of the Earth
Sorry, the 173000 TW is the energy hitting top of atmosphere. About 88000 TW is left to heat the surface, the rest is reflected back.
The 88000 TW is not staying there. It is radiated into space as infrared light. The greenhouse effect is caused by CO2 blocking a bit of this escaping energy, which then results in surface warming until a new balance is achieved.
Re: (Score:2)
As to the volcanic activity; the pressure from large ice sheets acts as a damper -- research into just this phenomenon revealed a 5-fold increase in earthquakes and volcanoes following ice ages. But we don't have any data on ice sheets coming off this quickly. Probably going to be more than a 5-fold increase in the areas that used to have a few billion tons of ice on them.
Re: (Score:2)
"If "
Its not an 'if' its testable, and had been tested, and it's not even hard to test.
Pole melting will create a sharp rise in temperature, rising ocean levels,
Yes, it's likely there will be more geological activity because the weight distribution of the water will change. However, this is one of the least worrying issues of AGW.
Yes, the weather is already more significant, plus the atmosphere has more moisture, so we will see an increase in the extremes.
My replies are simple, and l intended to inform and
Like the ice in my Martini (Score:2)
It's one of the core properties of ice to disappear when melting.
All glaciers are unstable (Score:3)
There is no such thing as a stable glacier.
Re: (Score:3)
Why people chose to live a life of fear based on such uncertainly is beyond me. I guess it's kind of addictive to be afraid constantly? I sure wouldn't know, because I believe in science and reason.
Beyond me too. I also believe in science and reason, which is why I take my science from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Plus, why worry? Try to do something to fix things, know it's going to happen and come to peace with it, or ignore it, because it's too big and non-consumer-oriented to do anything about.
Re: (Score:2)
From the perspective of Colorado. 20 inches? So What?
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Why people chose to live a life of fear based on such uncertainly is beyond me. I guess it's kind of addictive to be afraid constantly?
Would you say that someone who always puts their seatbelt on is living a life of fear ?
Re: (Score:3)
Not now, but when they were first in cars, people said that. It took a mandatory seatbelt law and a generation to change attitudes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. When I decide whether to put on my seatbelt, I only care about one car, and the error bars for that one particular car are huge.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not defending this particular study, because I don't have the expertise for it. I do defend the general idea of making choices based on the best information we have at that moment, even if it's not perfect.
But since you apparently know more about this, can you explain why this study was bad ?
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you should read the study and learn to understand it. The headline isn't justified by the content of the paper.
Ignore the headline. You said the study was "rather bad". Please explain why you think so.
Re: (Score:3)
Science requires experimentation
This is not true. Science requires hypothesis testing, which is often done by experimentation but can also be done by observation. If experimentation were a hard requirement, then none of the sciences which study things that are too big or too far away to experiment with/on would be sciences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be the real scientist here, with your grasp of grammar and your ability to build coherent sentences, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a bad study.
Maybe learn some things? or, you know, keep letting us know your dumb as a bag of dicks by expressing your ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
"These models have error bars so wide you could drive the car crash through them. "
no they are not. Even if what you said was true(it's not you liar) best case is STILL REALLY BAD.
" but we have a good estimate of how likely it is you will die from a car crash. "
Oh, just an estimate? not a precise number? not certainty? well that I guess seat belt use saving lies is a Chinese hoax.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
We have no idea what may happen, so you should all be afraid because estimates that we have no idea of how correct they are, could possibly show disaster.
Why people chose to live a life of fear based on such uncertainly is beyond me. I guess it's kind of addictive to be afraid constantly? I sure wouldn't know, because I believe in science and reason.
I think it's clear that you do not believe that scientists make a good-faith attempt to forecast future conditions based on current science and data. There is no hope for you, despite your claim that you believe in science and reason. You presume a hidden agenda, without proof. Your lack of fear is based on wilful ignorance.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Interesting)
If climate change is real, governments around the world stand to lose trillions worth of property (land, cities, businesses) that are currently located just above sea level. They are in possession of a simple, effective, and cheap method to stop climate change dead in its tracks, which is building nuclear power plants on a large scale. And the only actions they take are... taxation and restrictions on what citizens can do. In other words, for them it is not about climate, it is about money and power. They do not believe in climate change, other than as a tool to sow fear and strengthen their grip on society.
If there is anything bothering me about the climate change narrative, it's that.
Re: (Score:3)
Do the voters want nuclear ?
Also, it's a bit optimistic to call nuclear "simple, effective, and cheap" when there's no solution for transportation fuels, which is responsible for almost one third of our CO2 production.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say of the new designs, yes.
I would also say that governments aren't really listening to the people nowadays, so that's probably why they aren't building them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We know how to turn nuclear fission into electricity. From there we have two well developed choices to displace transportation fuels with this electricity. We have electric battery vehicles and synthesized fuels.
We have ideas, but setting up the entire infrastructure is not particularly "simply, effective and cheap". Synthetic fuel from nuclear sources is going to be a lot more expensive than current gasoline made from crude oil, and it will require massive investments to reach the volumes required.
Similarly, production of EV (especially the batteries) is going rather slow.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Informative)
Similarly, production of EV (especially the batteries) is going rather slow.
Over the current year the growth rate of electrical vehicle deployment globally is at least 40%. This is an enormous growth rate. Large scale deployment of EVs requires massive shifts in energy supply for said vehicles, so you can't do this in just a few years. In the real world we look at growth rates of industries to say whether something is "fast" or "slow", not expecting large numerical deployments to suddenly appear.
Re: (Score:2)
" production of EV (especially the batteries) is going rather slow."
it's going faster than ever and accelerating.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, I ceratian do not want Nuclear because humans have a terrible trach record.
You LITERALLY want corporation to make costly decision they are for thing 20 years down the road.
Lets see some examples:
TEPCO: was suppose to move material out of the pool. They chose to ignore regulation so the executives could get a larger bonus.
Chernobyl was human error.
Westinghouse suddenly declared bankruptcy, and emerged not having to honor their contract to dismantle the nuclear power plants that they sold.
We have no reall
Big space rock (Score:3, Interesting)
So, by extension, do you not believe in big ass asteroids because the government hasn't done much to prevent one of those from totally wiping us out either?
The government doesn't do a very good job solving the problems we face here and now, what makes you think they'd do any better with problems we may face in the future? Collectively, the government has the foresight of a 13-year-old with his first pack of cigarettes.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
It is.
Re: (Score:2)
Building nuclear plants is none of the things you describe. Building wind and solar is simpler, easier, AND cheaper than building nuclear plants. What do you think you will accomplish by telling blatant and easily disproven lies, besides becoming known as a liar (and not even a clever one?)
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
If climate change is real, governments around the world stand to lose trillions worth of property (land, cities, businesses) that are currently located just above sea level. They are in possession of a simple, effective, and cheap method to stop climate change dead in its tracks, which is building nuclear power plants on a large scale...
Calling nuclear power "cheap" is an odd choice given than it is the most expensive source of electricity (but for off-shore wind) currently being deployed (SuperKendall recently linked to a DOE study that showed this, though he lied about what it said). But an interesting truth that you allude to is that governments must build it, which is tied to the cost problem. Every nation that has an active nuclear power construction program today, or has a nuclear-majority grid, did this by having a government run nuclear power industry -- China, South Korea, France, Russia, India.
It appears that only governments are able to take on the long-run planning and absorb the short and medium term financial risks that is required to undertake large scale nuclear power deployment today.
Why this not so in the 1960s and 1970s when nuclear power plants were built in the U.S.? A major part of that explanation is that at that time electricity demand was climbing at 5% a year and thus there was enormous expected demand to underwrite even expensive and speculative investments. What we mostly doing today is replacing existing power plants that already operated at reasonable cost. This is a very different kettle of fish, industrial investment-wise.
Government run industries are called "socialism" which tends to be a dirty word among the very people who are nuclear power enthusiasts -- yet that is the only way to get plants built now.
Re: (Score:3)
Government run industries are called "socialism" which tends to be a dirty word among the very people who are nuclear power enthusiasts
I am a counter example to this claim.
Re: (Score:3)
Government run industries are called "socialism"
Err, yes, they are. Could you repeat the problem please because I couldn't hear you over the sound of my socialist healthcare, socialist social system, socialist emergency services, socialist water supply, socialist public transportation, and socialist electrical grid. I think we can handle one more socialist thing added to the list.
Re: (Score:2)
"which is building nuclear power plants on a large scale."
Humans have a poor track record handling nuclear material.
"taxation and restrictions on what citizens can do."
So you think changing power source is fucking free? are you really that fucking stupid?
governments around the world are doing something about it. America isn't.
" climate change narrative"
It's a scientific fact that the planet is warming at an extremely fast rate due to human activities. Demonstrable, testable fact. Hell, the tests are so simp
Re: (Score:2)
This was the same conclusion I reached.
Governments are not acting rationally if there is an existential risk. We should be building out nuclear en masse.
The logical conclusion is that it is a way to increase their power and influence.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
This was the same conclusion I reached.
Governments are not acting rationally if there is an existential risk. We should be building out nuclear en masse.
The logical conclusion is that it is a way to increase their power and influence.
That is far from the only logical conclusion. You're reasoning down a very narrow path toward a conclusion that you want to reach, ignoring many other possibilities, likely because of some invalid assumptions you've made.
In particular, you're assuming that government is competent, focused on the long term, and able to make and execute long term plans. None of those assumptions are particularly valid. Try assuming that government is no more competent than any other organization and is controlled by politicians who see no farther than the next election, then see what other possibilities open up.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Informative)
... that will saddle future generations with toxic waste for the next 100,000 years.
You failed physics in high school, didn't you?
Tell me something, what happens when an atom of plutonium decays? It emits an alpha particle and then becomes uranium. Each atom of this does this, depending on the specific isotope, with a half life from decades to many thousands of years. What does it take to shield a person from this alpha? A few centimeters of air, or the layer of dead skin cells on your body. Elements that take 100,000 years to decay are not a toxic hazard, unless you eat it. So don't eat it.
What is harmful to humans tends to be the things that have short half lives. The shorter the half life the more atoms decay in any given time period. This is why we store nuclear fuel rods removed from a nuclear power reactor in water on site for 10 years or so, they are highly radioactive for this time. The water shields the environment from the radiation and carries away the heat produced. After that time we can store the spent fuel in air cooled steel and concrete containers until the longer half life stuff decays away, which can take a few decades to 300 years. Not a trivial time period but we've built structures that last this long with little or no maintenance before. After that 300 years the long lived stuff, the stuff that emits a few alpha particles over long periods of time, are harmless enough to hold in your hand.
This spent fuel is not a long lasting toxic waste pile we need to guard from curious children for the next 100,000 years. What it is, or what it should be, is a source of very useful isotopes for medicine, science, and industry. We'd be leaving future generations a valuable resource to mine for isotopes that are exceedingly rare in nature. This should be viewed as a highly valuable resource.
Re:Go suck a fuel rod faggot. (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to know not a damn thing and not mention gamma radiation, which is in fact released during trans-uranic decays.
Yes, transuranium elements do decay with a gamma but none of them are long lived.
https://www.britannica.com/sci... [britannica.com]
All the gamma emitters will have largely decayed away in the time a spent fuel rod is in the on site cooling pool at a nuclear power reactor. After that it's just alphas and betas, with a few rare spontaneous fission events producing very little gammas.
You know nothing about this, your "high school" education isn't splitting shit and certainly not atoms.
Go suck a fuel rod faggot. The skin on the inside of your mouth should protect you, bitch.
I see that you failed to make the debate team in high school as well as failing in physics, chemistry, math, and biology.
Re: (Score:2)
Car analogies are great. We can do this many different ways to suit our perspective.
Imagine if we stopped developing new and safer car technology in response to Ralph Nader's publication "Unsafe at any speed."
We would all be zooming around in 1965 death-trap cars still for the same reason we are whipping less safe early-generation reactors beyond their original service lifetime. We can't do without them, and we don't have a politically or financially palatable way forward either.
Fortunately, people instea
Re: (Score:2)
we don't have enough fissile material to power them
The oceans hold a six thousand year supply of uranium at current consumption rates, and if all electricity in the world were converted to nuclear power (i.e. no solar or wind at all) it would be 600 years. Technologies for seawater extraction have already been demonstrated that operate at costs low enough not to interfere with nuclear power economic viability (though they are higher than current mining costs).
Try again.
Right back at ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Adorable you use current consumption, the fact would would need to go up by an order of magnitude seems to not matter to you.
" Technologies for seawater extraction have already been demonstrated that operate at costs low enough "
Now you're pulling it out of your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Lost in Translation (Score:2)
"I think it's clear that you do not believe that scientists fail to make a good-faith attempts to forecast future conditions based on current science and data. There is no hope for you, despite your claim that you believe in science and reason. You presume there is nota hidden agenda, without proof. Your fear is based on wilful ignorance."
Just because you state something, does not m
Re: (Score:2)
>> However, 500 simulations of different scenarios pointed to it losing stability. This increased uncertainty about future sea level rise but made the worst-case scenarios more likely.
Is it ignorant to question how *simulations* have a causal affect on the likelihood of worst-case scenarios? Is 500 a big number? What did other simulations show? Did any simulations take into account the likelihood of near-future technological advances that clean up the air and generate energy more cleanly?
Perhaps there
Re: (Score:3)
But they put a definite time on it!
in 50 to 800 years something really really bad and irreversible could happen...or not...or it could be reversible. But you need to be scared!
Scared? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, smart people would recognize the "scientific paper" was absolutely worthless with vague unsubstantiated claims
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, after such a thorough debunking these scientists will never be published again! They'll probably turn to suicide before the end of the year, now that Super Ken Doll has exposed them for the frauds they are.
It's a fine thing to demonstrate that their study is invalid, but please think of their innocent families before you humiliate them in this manner!
Re: (Score:2)
No, there literally isn't. there isn't even figuratively a billion dollars.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
We have no idea what may happen, so you should all be afraid because estimates that we have no idea of how correct they are, could possibly show disaster. Why people chose to live a life of fear based on such uncertainly is beyond me. I guess it's kind of addictive to be afraid constantly? I sure wouldn't know, because I believe in science and reason.
Which specific part of the paper did you disagree with, SuperKendall?
I'm just wondering if your belief in "science and reason" extends as far as actually reading the scientific paper that you're responding to...?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just wondering
Why are you wondering? This can be considered settled science. Given past performance we can predict with a high statistical significance that SuperKendall hasn't read a the paper he is responding to.
Don't be anti science! :-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We have no idea what may happen, so you should all be afraid because estimates that we have no idea of how correct they are, could possibly show disaster.
Why people chose to live a life of fear based on such uncertainly is beyond me. I guess it's kind of addictive to be afraid constantly? I sure wouldn't know, because I believe in science and reason.
But we do know, because it is already happening.
Alaska recently hit 90 degrees. That's of course weather, which is an extreme local variation. But the highs are getting higher and occurring more often. People (NASA, other scientists) are measuring how quickly the glaciers are disappearing. There are trends. They have taken this data and extrapolated out "if this keeps occurring, where will we be in 10, 20, 50 years?" THAT'S A MODEL People like you keep talking about models as if they are some black magic vo
Really? I remember when /. was pro-science. (Score:5, Insightful)
We have no idea what may happen, so you should all be afraid because estimates that we have no idea of how correct they are, could possibly show disaster.
Not exactly.
No study [to date] has provided a theoretical framework explaining the role of ice sheet dynamics in setting the amount and structure of uncertainty in sea-level rise projections.
We provide such a theoretical framework in this study and find that ice sheet instabilities are amplifiers of uncertainty, which is a common mathematical property of unstable nonlinear systems.
You seem to be objecting to this finding of increased uncertainty. I suggest you try to understand it as a finding, and
Why people chose to live a life of fear based on such uncertainly is beyond me.
It's a scientific study. It doesn't tell anyone how to live a life. You seem to be advocating not acting on climate change because it is "not a life of fear". We see many people advocating not acting on climate change. It's not real. It will damage the economy. There is nothing we can do without returning to the stone age. There is nothing we can do without killing most of the people. It is real, but it's not anthropogenic. It is real, it's anthropogenic but there's nothing we can do.
And now "don't live a life of fear."
You realize that your comment is in line with the propaganda messages of the denialosphere?
I sure wouldn't know, because I believe in science and reason.
This is a scholarly paper. If you believe in science and reason, read it as an addition to that. That current conservative sea level rise projections might not be as conservative as we hoped is scientific information.
If you want instead to use that as a platform to repeat anti-science messaging, I suggest that you do not believe in science and reason enough.
So? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You've left science and went into predicting the future with EXTREMELY INCOMPLETE models and then pretending you've got something concrete.
There's a lot more to climate science that GCMs.
And the GCMs have been bang on in some imporatant outputs, such as global mean surface temperature, even ones 30 years old. [theguardian.com]
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you wouldn't be a climate change denier. Which is really just capitalist butthurt - it's easier to think that there's a global cabal of scientists pushing a conspiracy theory than it is for you to accept that St. Capitalism is going to get a lot of people killed.
Re: (Score:2)
The science proving the substantial accelerated global warming is man mad can be shown, and the tests done,in a freshman high school lab.
Ever wonder why a 22 trillion dollar industry attacks scientist and ms represents science instead of creating repeatable tests?
" because I believe in science and reason."
No, you do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Why people chose to live a life of fear based on such uncertainly is beyond me.
Your tough guy talk is pretty hilarious.
Do you wear a seatbelt when driving?
Do you like having food inspectors check produce, dairy and meat products?
How about hand rails on balconies?
Homeowners insurance?
I bet there are quite a few things you fear.
Re: (Score:2)
We have plenty of well reasoned, evidence based ideas of what may happen, what is likely to happen, and what is happening now. You frequently don't seem to buy into that well reasoned evidence, so I can only assume you are relying on "alternate facts." These aren't people reading tarot cards as you suggest, but serious scientist working their asses off to figure this problem out and help us prepare for the likely eventualities. What nobody can say with certainty is the exact speed of these effects, or th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well I guess that explains the fear of "Communism" and "Soshulism" that prevails among the US slashdot members.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't fear the ((Marxist)) Reaper, dude!
Communism & Socialism just need more cowbell.
Strat
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks for letting us know you actual know nothing about Communism & Socialism. Since that aren't comparable, one being a economic susytem of government, and the other one be social aspect in a government.
Ah, I sense that the "that wasn't *real* socialism" is strong with you.
Both systems are based in Marxism. Socialism 'socializes' economics, and communism 'socializes' culture. National Socialism, also based on Marxism, as practiced by the Nazis 'socialized' race. Hitler himself in his writings differentiating the Nazis from the Soviets described National Socialism as socialism of race.
I do not believe it is I who lacks understanding here.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you are.
Because socialism has many forms, you can just point to one form and then make ad hom attacks against the person.
You are also make assumptions about a post that was just laying out the broad definition of shit you clearly know nothing about.
Henri de Saint-Simon is also Marx? weird. No wait, your just ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
China is kicking our ass, so what where you saying?
Two simple questions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, buddy, can you answer these two questions? What's the rough amount of money spent on all climate change funding in the world for the past century or so? What's the oil and gas industry's profit in one month?
Re: (Score:2)
Just to play devil’s advocate, if other parties have a chance at that profit by getting people in a tizzy what kind of ROI do you think they would be looking for?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean funding from governments that overthrow other countries for their oil? All the time? Iraq, Libya, Iran, with Venezuela and Iran (second go around) as works in progress? If there was any bias from said funding, it would be against climate change, not for it.
Re: (Score:3)
We did. It goes back to Exxon [theguardian.com] who knew their activities were related to climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
And like a typical thug Apple slimeball, gets those surprise +5 mods for any vapid post. Big surprise. Thug Apple. Thug Apple slimeball.
See, thug Apple sending out it's slimeball troll mods _again_. Just what we have come to expect from aging thug Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. And if there were no consequences of stopping CO2 emissions to prevent a possible negative outcome, I'm sure it would be easy to convince people to do it. Unfortunately for you there are guaranteed and known negative effects of stopping CO2 emissions today to prevent a maybe negative effect in the future. That's a bit harder of a sell...
But hey, since you are convinced that stopping CO2 is the safest option, I can only assume you are holding your breath, buy no gasoline or natural gas, and gen
Re: (Score:2)
OH, an disingenuous and stupid argument from the extreme. Do you even listen to yourself?
", I can only assume you are holding your breath,"
OF course not, don't be an uidiot.
" buy no gasoline "
I do not by gasoline. I have a 100% electric vehicle
" natural gas"
I do not buy natural gas.
"generate all your electricity on solar panels"
mostly, the rest is wind.
" carried on your back from China."
After less than a year, the CO2 output form moving them will be far less than my CO2 output if I used fossil fuels.
The cha
Re: (Score:2)
On the lifetime of a planet, 50 or 800 years is the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
For a precise measurement. Meaning there are error bars, but even best case, it's still melting at an alarming rate.
https://www.pnas.org/content/e... [pnas.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "climate crisis".
And there was no wildfire disaster in California two years running. Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "climate crisis".
Is your position that there's no increase in CO2?
Or that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?
Or that increasing the impacts of the warming that we're seeing doesn't amount to a "crisis"?
Because none of those seem right to me.
Re: (Score:2)
East of Thailand, Isaan, is this year in a server crisis. Probably harvest losses of over 50%
If my wife has bad luck, we will have no harvest at all.
To dry, to hot, no water.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't care what happens in the next 50-800 years, as just about anything could happen and I'll be dead. I'd rather enjoy things now then sacrifice my quality of life on what could happen, maybe.
I'm guessing you have no kids, or even nieces/nephews. Enjoy your leaf-node in the tree of human evolution.
The rest of us would like to try to leave the world a better place than the way we found it.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't care what happens in the next 50-800 years, as just about anything could happen and I'll be dead.
That's an interesting moral system. If someone is displaced in time from me, I have no care for their welfare.
Do you feel the same about people a long way away from you?
I'd rather enjoy things now then[sic] sacrifice my quality of life on what could happen, maybe.
Good on you. Action on climate change, such as cleaing power generation doesn't sacrifice quality of life. For instance the US states in the RGGI [c2es.org] have seen their economies grow faster than the US average.
But a lot of people would do small things to help a lot of other less fortunate people anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Take a deep breath.
Global warming is a scam to part you from your money. Its not a troll to disagree with faulty and illogical information. You religious zealots news to get a grip before you ACTUALLY damage something or hurt people.
No sir/madam, it is you who is the enviro-troll.
You seem to echo the words of another enviro-troll:
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. - Donald J. Trump, current POTUS.
And if you have issue with supposed "faulty and illogical information" then you need to post citations. Because the broad swath of evidence is not on your side.
Big pharma can't make a profit off it (Score:2)
Re:It is not abnormal for the Earth to have no ice (Score:5, Insightful)
It was also way more common in the Earth's history not to have cities worth of people and infrastructure squatting on the upper parts of the continental shelves.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The wealthy power elite have *rational incentive* to protect their coastal investments, and no cost is too high or chance too low to take action, if they are not facing the direct costs.
How else ought anybody else expect them to behave? A skeptical scientist's position is more neutral but not aligned with their narrow economic interests.
Re:It is not abnormal for the Earth to have no ice (Score:5, Insightful)
It was more common in the Earth's history to have no ice at the poles.
It was also more common in Earth's history to have no more than trace amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
It was more common in the Earth's history to have no ice at the poles.
It was also more common in Earth's history to have no more than trace amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere.
It was also more common in the Earth's history to not have multicellular organisms.
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity is already an extinction event on the rest of the world with or without climate change.
Straw man.
Re:It is not abnormal for the Earth to have no ice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: So Nostalgic... (Score:2, Interesting)
I know this is going to be hard for you to think about... But, have you considered that it is still a place of scientific literacy and rational thought?
Would it be possible that modern climate science is treated more like a religion than a field of study, and the people you smear as "denialists" might be right?
"The science is settled, and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi who should be exterminated for crimes against humanity."
That is not a hyperbolic paraphrasing. It's a literal representation of the honest p
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is going to be hard for you to think about... But, have you considered that it is still a place of scientific literacy and rational thought?
Would it be possible that modern climate science is treated more like a religion than a field of study, and the people you smear as "denialists" might be right?
"The science is settled, and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi who should be exterminated for crimes against humanity."
That is not a hyperbolic paraphrasing. It's a literal representation of the honest position of a significant number of leftists, including several here on /.
They aren't scientific or rational, yet you're oddly running defense for them.
Is someone pulling my leg? These Anonymous Cowards are being as stupid and obvious as possible. If anything, this is not an attempt to convince anyone that "oh shock -- greater minds have entered the discussion" -- but just to deter anyone with real knowledge and an inquisitive mind and send them packing. It's like all the assholes from the kiddie table are ruining the dining experience and nobody wants to go to a 5 course meal with the Chuck-E-Cheese crowd that can't eat with their mouths closed.
Is there s
real answer (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because as adults we have been hearing since early childhood how the sky is falling "in the next X years" and 10+ years after Year X these lying fucks (or I'll grant maybe just plain stupid) are still saying the same shit but now have put X so far out they won't be alive to be embarrassed anymore by their lies but still get the career and political benefits.
What are some specifics of these career and political benefits that a scientist gets from lying?
We have evidence (like facts n science n shit, eh?) that demonstrates the things LEAST LIKELY TO EVER HAPPEN IS WHAT THESE SO CALLED SCIENTISTS SAY.
Really?
Can you link me to some of this evidence?
That is why. Experience has taught us they have no fucking clue and aren't performing science.
Okay. Most scientifically literate people have the opposite experience. The predictions from the past have closely matched observations since. Even back in 1980 when the most infant global climate model's results were presented by Dr. James Hansen, that model has been right on the nose [theguardian.com] with respect to global mean surface temperature. - News article [theguardian.com].
More recent