Climate Change Causes and Impacts Are Increasing, UN Report Says (axios.com) 355
As world leaders gather in New York City for the United Nations Climate Action Summit Monday, a UN report warns climate change is accelerating -- with the Earth on track for the warmest 5-year period on record. From a report: "Climate change causes and impacts are increasing rather than slowing down. Sea level rise has accelerated and we are concerned that an abrupt decline in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, which will exacerbate future rise. As we have seen this year with tragic effect in the Bahamas and Mozambique, sea level rise and intense tropical storms led to humanitarian and economic catastrophes," said World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Petteri Taalas in a statement.
Data compiled by the World Meteorological Organisation for the report, to be presented to the UN summit, shows the average global temperature for 2015-2019 is on course to be the warmest of any equivalent period on record. "It is currently estimated to be 1.1Celsius (+- 0.1C) [about 2F] above pre-industrial (1850-1900) times," the UN said in a statement accompanying the "United in Science" report. To stop a global temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and meet the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, countries must triple climate emission cut targets, the report warns.
Data compiled by the World Meteorological Organisation for the report, to be presented to the UN summit, shows the average global temperature for 2015-2019 is on course to be the warmest of any equivalent period on record. "It is currently estimated to be 1.1Celsius (+- 0.1C) [about 2F] above pre-industrial (1850-1900) times," the UN said in a statement accompanying the "United in Science" report. To stop a global temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and meet the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, countries must triple climate emission cut targets, the report warns.
Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Participating in some Activism there editors ? https://www.coveringclimatenow.org/ [coveringclimatenow.org]
Our initiative includes more than 300 outlets worldwide, and dozens of institutional and independent partners, with a combined audience of more than 1 billion people.
From September 15-23, our partners have committed to emphasizing climate stories. The goal is to maximize coverage of the climate crisis and its impacts in the lead up to the United Nations Climate Summit on September 23.
This is a good way to spread the message that Media has no credibility, not to get people on board. It's just propaganda.
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Participating in some Activism there editors ? https://www.coveringclimatenow.org/ [coveringclimatenow.org]
Our initiative includes more than 300 outlets worldwide, and dozens of institutional and independent partners, with a combined audience of more than 1 billion people. From September 15-23, our partners have committed to emphasizing climate stories. The goal is to maximize coverage of the climate crisis and its impacts in the lead up to the United Nations Climate Summit on September 23.
This is a good way to spread the message that Media has no credibility, not to get people on board. It's just propaganda.
Someone has to do something to drown out the high-profile lunatic denialists.
The vast majority of the people who study the topic are in agreement that this is a Big Deal. The denialists rely on a general (and growing) distrust of "experts". Which is unhealthy. The more frequently and consistently the message that the climate-study profession is repeated, the more likely those who don't want to believe will be overruled.
Emissions-control costs money that could otherwise be invested in private yachts.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's something better you could do to prove that Climate Change is a Big Deal .
Move the hell out of the city and into the mountains, preferably to an elevation ABOVE 500 feet.
You are predicting disaster for anybody living on the coasts, so why not move away from the coast?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How high sea level rises will be and when they will occur is is one of the hardest things to predict based on models, so moving out of coastal cities doesn't make sense.
You don't sound very worried then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:5, Insightful)
CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas pollutant, plus it's way too late overall to stop the effects. So since the effects are indeed predictable, why not relocate your city to higher ground?
I find it amazing how people who are against dealing with climate change manage to shift so rapidly from claiming that it isn't going to happen or isn't going to be serious (as you claimed in your first comment) to jumping to claiming that it is going to happen and its too late to stop. (Note by the way that while CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas it is the one that matters by far the most.) And it is unfortunately true that at this point, some substantial negative results are going to happen no matter. what, but how bad those impacts are, and how much time we'll have to deal with them are very much functions of how much CO2 we produce now. if we reduce CO2 levels now that means we have more time to implement solutions involving things like geoengineering in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.
The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxi
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That link compared city to city. Where is the link that *includes* rural areas of less than 10 people per acre?
Is there a reason that you think that the trends they discuss that are the cause for this such as shorter commutes would break down in the very rural areas? If so, please explain why you think this. The default extrapolation there is pretty clear. Note by the way, the article does give other data backing this up. They include overall graphs for CO2 per economic output by state, and you can see that the denser states have generally much lower numbers. That's also consistent with denser states in general hav
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>Someone has to do something to drown out the high-profile lunatic denialists.
Acting like a lunatic to drown out the other lunatic is not a good way to convince the non-lunatics.
>general (and growing) distrust of "experts".
Gee I wonder why. Being propagandized to by hypocrites while using lunatics as a mouth piece doesn't convey anything worthwhile.
>Emissions-control costs money that could otherwise be invested in private yachts.
You know better how to use other peoples money. I am sure you had the
Re: (Score:3)
Someone has to do something to drown out the high-profile lunatic denialists.
Ad hominem attacks instead of respectful disagreement is a sign that your argument has no legs to stand on. The ones you call deniers don't actually deny the earth is warming. They simply disagree with the cause.
The vast majority of the people who study the topic are in agreement that this is a Big Deal.
This has also been proven to be false. While the majority agree we are in a period of warming there is no consensus on its cause. The side demanding humans are the cause are simply louder, and angrier, than the rest. There are just as many climatologists who consider the current warming to be natura
Re: (Score:3)
The vast majority of the people who study the topic are in agreement that this is a Big Deal.
This has also been proven to be false. While the majority agree we are in a period of warming there is no consensus on its cause. The side demanding humans are the cause are simply louder, and angrier, than the rest. There are just as many climatologists who consider the current warming to be natural and will eventually abate giving way to yet another cooling period. As has been the case for millennia.
No other subject has seen this amount of effort to build a scientific concensus as this. The IPCC has been doing exactly that: bring the top scientits around the world together to have them make a report on what their common standpoint is on climate change. They have 3 working groups: WG1 looks at the evidence for climate change. WG2 looks at the causes and WG looks at possible remedies.
Stating that there is still discussion about the causes is simply not true from a scientific point of view.
Re: (Score:3)
You are ridiculous. China has four times the population of the United States, which means they get to pollute four times as much. And they aren't even close to that yet, so take your american exceptionalism and pour it into a nice, warm cup of stfu.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure [www.ipcc.ch]. Comprehensive evidence that human activity is the cause, carefully summarised for non-scientists with all the cited studies you crave.
Now I'll bet you'll dismiss all of it in the usual ways, or just ignore this response. Like every denier does.
Re: (Score:3)
While the majority agree we are in a period of warming there is no consensus on its cause.
Sure looks like a clear consensus [wikipedia.org] to me. I'm assuming you have no credible surveys to cite that claim otherwise.
Don't like surveys? How about the huge list [wikipedia.org] of scientific societies and institutions that endorse the IPCC's findings? In fact there's just one that isn't on that list - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they changed their tune to be non-committal a while back, because their members were threatening to quit the association if they didn't.
If you still claim there's no cons
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have children you care about? Friends with children? Any nieces or nephews?
If you could gain 100 dollars but doing so would mean that as soon as you died everyone else in the world would suffer in terrible agony would you do so?
The answers to these questions may be relevant to deciding whether you should care about what happens after you die.
Re: (Score:2)
None that I know of, and thank goodness for ProChoice, and I"ll leave it at that, hahaha.
But as for other peoples' kids, sure I know them, but I don't figure the shit will hit the fan one generation after me....and after that, I really don't care.
Not for a mere $100...
Re: (Score:2)
But as for other peoples' kids, sure I know them, , but I don't figure the shit will hit the fan one generation after me....and after that, I really don't care.
Do you want those kids to grow up in a world where they will know that their own children will suffer then?
Not for a mere $100...
Ok. So we've now established that you do care about the world after you die. In that context then, how far do you care? If you could gain 100 dollars but doing so would mean that ten years afteryou died everyone else in the world would suffer in terrible agony would you do so? Twenty years? Thirty years?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's talk maybe $1M-$10M minimum and my answer may change, hell, almost anyone's opinion would change.
You just gotta come up with a better dollar number.
Re: (Score:3)
> I don't figure the shit will hit the fan one generation after me....and after that, I really don't care.
Maybe this explains the Fermi paradox. Low life forms like you, who do not care about kids being born today or in the future, may be a universal plague. In other words, maybe it's the case that technological civilization leads moral development by at least as much time as is needed for self-destruction of semi-intelligent life forms such as humans.
Re: (Score:2)
That does pretty much seem to be where it comes from. Fundamentally, climate denial is nihilism at its purest. "I don't care what happens in the future."
Of course, it is hitting us now. Insurance is going up, because there's one group that knows very well the effects, even at this point, and that is actuaries. Their entire job is assessing risk and putting a dollar value on it, to assure premiums are sufficient to maintain reserve funds, make insurance companies, and where necessary, pull coverage for certa
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, the classical asshole gambit. That's cool, most people do care and we vastly outnumber you. Unfortunately you're too dumb to see the forest for the trees and don't realize that by ceding this issue to people who, I don't know, have kids and loved ones and a general concern for the future of humanity, you are also ceding other issues.
If 40% of conservatives peel off from the mainstream 'right leaning' side because of asshole climate denialism that weakens them considerably on other issues. Are you that
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not everyone is a denialist.....many of us just really don't care.
At least you're honest.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:4, Insightful)
That kid causes more progress more in 5 minutes than you or I can do in our entire lifetimes. Your rambling, grumbling and hurling demeaning adjectives at her shows something about you. The trends are strong even on our human timescale, and lots of species had been exterminated already, more to go each passing day. Read up on this shit before insulting someone who knows more about this, and cares about it more.
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:5, Insightful)
She's done a lot more harm to your cause than you can imagine.
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in the Netherlands, a number of parties from both left and right recently reached a "climate agreement", a number of far reaching measures in order to reach the Paris agreement goals. The initial message was "this is going to be hard but it is eminently doable, and while it is going to hurt everyone financially, it won't break the bank, and none of us will actually have to give up all that much". This was received as a positive message that many people could get behind, and that's exactly the kind of thing that we need at this stage: workable plans and solutions, with support from the general populace.
Sadly the government failed to follow up the high level plan with some actual details, creating a void which the deniers quickly filled, decrying the plans as "unrealistic". Though most experts (not on climate change but economists and engineers) still agree that the plan can work, the greenies and their exceedingly efficient PR machine have followed the deniers retoric with the usual "yes we are still f-ed", and support for the plan is dwindling fast. Thunberg's message is just one of many doing more harm than good in this case.
Re: Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot. (Score:3)
That's because the moment there is a solution or even a viable plan most of the activists are out of job....this is lije asking for beurocracy to admit the job's done and go home.
I'm still greener than grass in my day to day life but I can't stand the hysteria and with every day I'm turning more and more against the activism. And the lack of objective assessment and meaningful discussions does not help.
My scientific soul rebels....
Greetings from A'dam.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Today they trotted out that little Swedish kid who "can see CO2 with the naked eye" (according to her mother).
You need to live somewhere that has a bad air pollution problem(like CA central valley), then maybe you would change your tune.
I'm talking about pollution levels that cause daily warnings for children, the elderly and people with breathing problems like asthma. [cbsnews.com]
Oh, and yea, you can see it.
This is real and affects the health of people and the environment in general.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Her mother should be in jail. Both this girl and her sister have a long list of mental/emotional problems and are taking tons of medications according to her mother, who seems proud of this. Nevertheless they trot her out to be used as a prop.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Her mother should be in jail. Both this girl and her sister have a long list of mental/emotional problems and are taking tons of medications according to her mother, who seems proud of this. Nevertheless they trot her out to be used as a prop.
Oh well, at least she serves as a prime illustration of why we don't let kids run anything important.
Re: (Score:2)
Your manner of discourse is despicable.
Re: Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot. (Score:2, Interesting)
RedK, Iâ(TM)m right there with you. As long as the elite take private jets to talk about how the rest of us should give up flying , serious credibility issues arise. Sea level rise is quoted in millimeters and yet the scare level simulators use meters. Worst case, 15 inches is the predicted rise by 2100. Itâ(TM)s all a game to grab wealth. Nothing is being done to actually address carbon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How does "triggering" people help? You guys are disgusting. You don't even think. You just antagonize.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno, you sure sound like a triggered snowflake ;-)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It doesn't matter whether you tune in or not. People with a basic level of intelligence and concern for fellow humans are going to continue to work around you.
Especially when all your "solutions" end up being massive socialist overalls and government power grabs
"Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter whether you tune in or not. People with a basic level of intelligence and concern for fellow humans are going to continue to work around you.
When you propagandize, you're not working, you're just scaremongering. And when your solutions are "Give money to Governments so they can spread it Internationally", you're not working towards actually solving the problem.
"Mr. Madison, what youâ(TM)ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Well what are things like the Green New Deal or the Green Fund from the Paris Accords then ? Oh right, exactly what I stated, Socialist reforms and Government power grabs that have almost nothing to do with actual Climate or the Environment.
Apply your own Adam Sandler movie quote to your
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to argue with science deniers is a waste of time. Again, we'll just work around them. They are either ignorant or are psychopaths.
And when your solutions are "Give money to Governments so they can spread it Internationally", you're not working towards actually solving the pro
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Using infantile insults like "science denier" is why people tune you out. It could be argued that you've been planted here to discredit the global warming advocates. That's how effective you've been.
Re: (Score:2)
"Especially when all your "solutions" end up being massive socialist overalls and government power grabs"
Yes the solutions , glad you brought that up.
1) reduce the amount of Co2 going into the atmosphere
2) sequester the Co2 already in the atmosphere.
Call that whatever you want.
But we need to make it happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Call that whatever you want.
But we need to make it happen.
Those aren't solutions. Those are goals. If you ever came to me as a client and said "I want to make more money", I'd ask right away "What's your business plan chief and how do you need me to contribute to it".
So as for your point 1), actual solutions would be :
- Focus on Nuclear deployments to replace coal
- Use Hydro and build Hydro dams and generators where feasable to also replace coal
- Continue working battery tech to make Electrical transports as convenient to use as petrol based transports.
- Electri
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are a typical contrarian and you are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Unfortunately for me, I tend to agree on a few other key issues with the sort of riffraff who are climate denialists, so as their importance wanes and they get drowned out their influence on these other subjects will also wane which is bad for me.
In other words, conservatives, open your eyes about the climate it's a serious fucking problem. Get on board or get left behind. And these pathetic strawmen about this being some global
Re: (Score:2)
And these pathetic strawmen about this being some globalist conspiracy to redistribute wealth just make you look like crazy kooks
https://www.greenclimate.fund/home [greenclimate.fund]
The Fund is a unique global platform to respond to climate change by investing in low-emission and climate-resilient development. GCF was established to limit or reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in developing countries, and to help vulnerable societies adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.
"Kooks". It's not like they hide it or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
When I'm being propagandized, I tune out.
You remind me of the people(most on /.) who didn't start paying attention to things outside their immediate vicinity until after 9/11.
You know the ones, they get riled up by paying attention to twitter and fb, and act as if they're impotent rage somehow matters.
The type of people who of a sudden act as if the media and journalism were always perfect, and there was never any bias.
I will reference a different kind of woke for you, I call it wake the fuck up.
The media and journalism were never perfect
Measurable effect of climate change... (Score:2, Flamebait)
...is increase in number of climate change denying astro-turfers
you, sir, are the canary in the coal mine which demonstrates that fossil fuel companies have no shame in profit on the death and displacement of millions.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't deny climate change. Polarising the debate and removing any criticism of the tactics through dehumanizing language like "Denier!" doesn't help anything.
I just hate propaganda. I don't think this is helping and in fact this tactic of using propaganda and perverting journalists to promote activism is only further creating actual deniers. It doesn't help that a lot of coverage bourne from these initiatives is alarmist bullshit that has no root in the science or the IPCC models and scientific report.
Re: (Score:2)
lol, you are simply attempting to slow any constructive debate, it s called fighting a delaying action, and while traditionally used to buy time for the army to evacuate, in this case it it buying to to allow for continued profiteering... until the rest of the population wises up.
You time is short
Re: (Score:2)
I don't deny climate change. Polarising the debate and removing any criticism of the tactics through dehumanizing language like "Denier!" doesn't help anything.
I just hate propaganda. I don't think this is helping and in fact this tactic of using propaganda and perverting journalists to promote activism is only further creating actual deniers. It doesn't help that a lot of coverage bourne from these initiatives is alarmist bullshit that has no root in the science or the IPCC models and scientific report.
You guys are making things worse by promoting these efforts. You're creating the populist movements that are resisting your attempts at solving the issue. This is counter productive bullshit.
1) reduce the amount of Co2 going into the atmosphere
2) sequester the Co2 already in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do not live on a coastal plain, instead I am well inland and will likely not move unless there is a disruption to clean water availability
The fact that I will not be swamped, does not preclude me from being concerned about millions of poor people across the planet who are being displaced
I do this for selfish reasons, namely that large groups of displaced poor people are harbingers of war
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to follow your reasoning.
News doesn't just come up, even big media outlets, doesn't have the resources to cover every little thing that goes on. If you want the media to pay attention to your cause you will need to do something to get attention.
Despite the claim of some that there is a LiBeRaL plot, to use climate change to make everyone's lives difficult, so they will have some sort of control of the world. Climate change is more of an issue that needs addressing and rational debates. However ther
Re: (Score:2)
Now there is a thought.
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh no, someone is spreading information widely to help a group! It must be e-e-e-e-e-eeeeevil!
Yes actually. It's not Journalists' job to create news or organize to spread a message in a way that is acceptable to their handlers.
Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as bad tactics. No, the greater good doesn't justify "by any means necessary".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The journalist job isn't to create news. But to spread a message is indeed a key part of journalism. We as humans are focused on a lot of things. We don't have the time to review someones work, but would like a general summary on what is going on. Some things are complex, so we need people who can make these complex ideas easy enough for us humans (who may be smart people, but just don't have the time to handle it) to process it, and if it requires actionable items, we can do such actions.
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:4, Insightful)
to spread a message is indeed a key part of journalism.
This is why Journalism is a steaming pile of shit these days.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why Journalism is a steaming pile of shit these days.
This idea that there was a golden age when journalism were noble is silly. It never existed, and there's no evidence that it did. Journalism has always been biased, which is why it's always been necessary to go multiple sources to get a full story. Bias is inevitable.
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:4, Insightful)
So you are saying it's always been a steaming pile of shit.
We can agree on that.
Re: (Score:3)
So you are saying it's always been a steaming pile of shit.
If you insist on using shit-related metaphor, sure. But you can grow food with shit. And sometimes there are valuables hiding in it, but I don't suggest checking every turd.
Re:Slashdot sure is pushing Climate change a lot.. (Score:5, Funny)
But to spread a message is indeed a key part of journalism.
"Goebbels did nothing journalistically wrong!"
Bro!....
Strat
I heard Clean Coal was the solution? (Score:5, Funny)
You take the coal, and clean it all up. I also heard that China doesn't clean their coal.
I really did hear that. You can find it on YouTube. So it MUST be true!
I'm not deliberately not going to name any person who I might have heard saying those exact things about clean coal.
There is another way to deal with climate change.
1. Ignore it
2. Move to higher ground away from the coasts
3. Get suntan lotion 5000 SPF and use it
There, not a problem now. See, everything all good now. Move along. Move along.
Re:I heard Clean Coal was the solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly enough, many people will not realize that you are being sarcastic
Re: (Score:2)
While I"m not going out of my way to make things worse, I'm certainly not going to do anything to lower the quality of my own lifestyle....
And, from what I can tell so far, the really bad stuff won't impact me in my lifetime, so, well....there you are.
I"m not overly concerned about it.
Re: (Score:3)
You are confusing warming with ozone depletion.
As for moving to higher ground, it's not just coastal areas. River flood plain maps have to be adjusted so that what had been hundred year floods happen every several years, as we have seen recently in Texas.
You also are missing having to move to avoid *drought*.
Re:I heard Clean Coal was the solution? (Score:5, Informative)
Because those are patterns that humans have followed for all of recorded history and probably well before that.
Humans rely on water based transport, in addition to using rivers for water sources for humans and crops
In many large cities on this planet, the poor populate the flood plains adjacent to rives and oceans, and they are the ones with the least resources to seek higher ground
FYI, when millions of poor people get displaced and they have nothing to lose, the shit starts to hit the fan in a big way
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying we should buy guns?
Re: (Score:2)
Old saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", which applies to this case in that avoiding displacing millions of people and inciting them to fight for survival would be the preferable course
Re: (Score:2)
You keep making this argument, I really don't understand how you can think it is valid. So your point is that instead of trying to fix a problem that will cause mass devastation over the next century, people should..move now to avoid the minor devastation it's already causing?
Sounds legit, you should move that talking point to the top of the list, by George!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you wouldn't. But a house doesn't have to be next to a river. Look at Hurricane Harvey. Stuff that was outside the hundred year floodplain when it was constructed will face regular flooding.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the UN generally requires a majority of the voting countries to agree on things, I would say that by definition the UN is the center. If you're so far to the right of it that you think the UN is not within your definition of normal disagreement in opinion, that makes you the outlier in the world population.
Re: (Score:2)
While the UN requires a majority of the voting COUNTRIES, this in no way implies that the opinion of the UN represents the majority of the PEOPLE.
Do remember, that Estonia, with 1.3M+ people has a vote in the UN just like China, with 1.4B+ people....
Geoengineering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We could solve this by creating algae blooms in the middle of the ocean and once that algae sinks to the bottom it takes all that carbon with it.
Considerably cheaper than the solar shade proposal and we could start doing it this year if we wanted to.
For more information.
https://www.the-scientist.com/... [the-scientist.com]
I think you have to be careful with this though, because creating algae blooms can also completely deplete the oxygen in the water.
People... (Score:2)
But everyone's still "No Nuke Shut 'em Down Now". (Score:5, Interesting)
Get back to me when you're serious about CO2 and climate change. I've been waiting for 40 years; still don't see much seriousness about the issue.
But, but, the USA is to blame? (Score:3, Interesting)
causes and impacts are increasing, yet the US has been reducing CO2 emissions by at least 12% over the last decade (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26152)
Something is wrong in the media blaming the US
Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes they are and if you do not believe in climate change you are dumb.
Re: Yes (Score:2)
Well here it is raining and yesterday it was not.
Re: (Score:3)
So, climate is not changing due to the endeavours of man ? So is this because A: CO2 does no trap heat or B: man does not raise CO2 concentration in the air ?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I don't get. They try to wave their hands and deny the climate is changing due to any man-made cause but as you point out it's very simple. The details are of course complicated because the Earth's climate and weather are complex.
But ultimately A and B are all you really need to agree to to understand the issue. Wave your hands, appeal to complexity, make up shit all you want but what's happening is clear. You can certainly quibble over whether we're doomed in 10 years or doomed in 50 years, and
Re: (Score:2)
but what about the longevity of those gasses ?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the worst greenhouse gas made by man is Sulfur Hexafluoride.
Where have I seen this mentioned before? Oh, here it is...
https://www.bbc.com/news/scien... [bbc.com]
Cheap and non-flammable, SF6 is a colourless, odourless, synthetic gas. It makes a hugely effective insulating material for medium and high-voltage electrical installations.
It is widely used across the industry, from large power stations to wind turbines to electrical sub-stations in towns and cities. It prevents electrical accidents and fires.
However, the significant downside to using the gas is that it has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2).
Just one kilogram of SF6 warms the Earth to the same extent as 24 people flying London to New York return.
It also persists in the atmosphere for a long time, warming the Earth for at least 1,000 years.
"As renewable projects are getting bigger and bigger, we have had to use it within wind turbines specifically," said Costa Pirgousis, an engineer with Scottish Power Renewables on its new East Anglia wind farm, which doesn't use SF6 in turbines.
"As we are putting in more and more turbines, we need more and more switchgear and, as a result, more SF6 is being introduced into big turbines off shore.
Re:It sure is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why just today, protestors in DC are causing hundreds of thousands of cars to idle in DC by shutting down traffic, emitting millions of pounds of CO2.
On the German TV channel TELE5 between shows they show a comic who plays a disgruntled, grumpy and downright ornery news commentator. For the US folks think of Stephen Colbert squawking German.
He commented of the protesting schoolkids:
"They can immediately help the planet right now by doing one thing . . . turn off their cell phones!"
And anyway, green is the new black. Anything and everything needs a hang-on that it is good for the environment.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if I saw shoestrings in a s
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And while we're at it, have you stopped beating your wife?
No, and I won't stop until she shuts the hell up about this climate change nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate protestors have delayed traffic for hours. Why are you claiming that is not increasing the number of cars idling?
Let me ask you something Ken.
Do you sit in drive throughs at Del Taco or any other place like that for convenience?
Right, I thought so.
Re: (Score:3)
You post as SuperKendall, how is that really any different than if you posted as AC?
Because my options over time can be tracked, and eventually tied to my real identity. You risk nothing when your alarmist bullshit is shown to be just that in the not too distant future. You can silently just drop your opinions that turn out to be wrong, consequence-free.
Protesters are perfectly entitled to protest
"Environmental" protestors can indeed protest, but what they cannot legally do, what they are not entitled to
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Climate change hysteria is not about science (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Nobody was talking about climate change until Greta Thunberg came along.
I am married to a geophysicist, so I've been reading and hearing about climate change since the early 1980s. Back when it was just scientists talking about it, you didn't listen. When Al Gore brought it to public attention, well he was just an old, has-been politician.
So what is it you want? Scientific expertise? Life experience? Or a more comforting message?
Greta Thunberg is notable because her generation's future will be defined by the challenges of adapting to climate change. You had better pay attention to her, because it's not just Thunberg. Everyone in her generation is watching to see what we do about this, and if we do nothing they'll conclude that they've been shafted, and reject everything, good or bad, that people who came before them stood for.
There are some people who think that's a good thing. The name for them is "radical". Conservation is, or should be, a conservative value.
Re:Climate change hysteria is not about science (Score:5, Insightful)
>Conservation should be a conservative value
It is. That is why it started under conservative leadership but nothing is immune from abuse and corruption. Same thing with Green Peace. At a time it was worthwhile but it was taken over by ideologues who replaced the academics and since then Green Peace is a joke.
>generation comes to power and finds itself faced with problems we could have averted with what to them will appear moderate reforms compared to the actions they'll be forced to take, they will be inclined to view capitalism as a failed system.
Then they deserve the failure they bring on themselves and their children and we would have failed, not because of Climate Change, but because we didn't part the correct lessons from history. How you do something is just as if not more important than doing it.
>Conservatives need to have a more positive message for young people than STFU.
A more positive message. Like, investing in cheaper [nuscalepower.com] sources of nuclear [apnews.com]? Like, promoting zero emission natural gas [forbes.com] plants? Or is that not the "positive message" you are looking for because radiation and fossil fuels?
Actions speak louder than words. The actions I see from the left is hypocrisy (let's litter and burn a dumpster in a protest to protect the environment) and outrage ("you stole my childhood" from 16yro). Meanwhile, I see a Trump supporter cleaning up 50 tons of diseased filth in LA and action towards energy generation that could actually solve the problem. The NRC is actually doing its job finally after more than a decade of stagnation. If the point is to protect the environment then a 26 acre power plant is better than hundreds of miles of habitat loss due to solar and wind farms.
The message should be that quick action is not the same as good action.
Re: (Score:2)
That's false. Scientists know how to create controlled experiments and work on using data that isn't skewed. That's literally science 101.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)