Earth's Oceans Are Getting Hotter and Higher, And It's Accelerating, UN Report Warns (npr.org) 331
According to a new report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ocean warming is accelerating and sea levels are rising more quickly. "The report is a synthesis of the most up-to-date climate science on oceans and ice, and it lays out a stark reality: Ocean surface temperatures have been warming steadily since 1970, and for the past 25 years or so, they've been warming twice as fast," reports NPR. From the report: Sea levels are also rising increasingly quickly "due to increasing rates of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets," the report states. The report also discusses a relatively new phenomenon in the oceans: marine heat waves. That's a big deal for coastal communities whose economies rely on fish and other seafood. Marine heat waves in recent years drove a cascade of changes in marine life off the coast of the Pacific Northwest, which in turn led to disastrous seasons for commercial fishermen.
Rising water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico have also affected weather in that region. When sea surface temperatures are unusually high, it helps fuel larger, wetter tropical storms. For example, Hurricane Harvey and Tropical Depression Imelda came inland and dropped incredible amounts of rain on Texas in the past two years. The U.N. panel's report suggests multiple actions that local, state and national leaders can take to slow ocean warming and rising, and to adapt to its impacts. First and foremost, the authors reinforce what has been known for decades: Greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are the main driver of changes in the world's oceans, and the global economy must undergo a dramatic transformation to reduce those emissions. [T]he report also notes that if greenhouse gas emissions are immediately and dramatically curtailed, some impacts of ocean acidification could be avoided this century.
Rising water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico have also affected weather in that region. When sea surface temperatures are unusually high, it helps fuel larger, wetter tropical storms. For example, Hurricane Harvey and Tropical Depression Imelda came inland and dropped incredible amounts of rain on Texas in the past two years. The U.N. panel's report suggests multiple actions that local, state and national leaders can take to slow ocean warming and rising, and to adapt to its impacts. First and foremost, the authors reinforce what has been known for decades: Greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are the main driver of changes in the world's oceans, and the global economy must undergo a dramatic transformation to reduce those emissions. [T]he report also notes that if greenhouse gas emissions are immediately and dramatically curtailed, some impacts of ocean acidification could be avoided this century.
I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
(like the Koch brothers did with the Berkeley Earth Report) they draw the same conclusions as all the other climate scientists.
Berkeley Earth reached the same conclusion about warming, and disproved the denialist "heat island effect" hypothesis, but did not reach the same conclusion about "extreme weather events". There is little evidence, or support from models, that global warming is making storms either more severe or more common.
Re:I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:5, Informative)
It is not as if the scientists are gathered in some kind of parliament and vote. That indeed would be unscientific.
Instead, we look at all the published papers, at their methods and results. And then we make a meta analysis, and then we find out that e.g. 95% of all published papers in the field are yielding similar results. That's what we call 'consensus' in the scientific world. (And it would be interesting to find out why 5% of all published papers come to other conclusions, which by itself is another part of scientific exploration.)
Basicly, scientific consensus is some kind of duck testing: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
Re: I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:4, Insightful)
We know the deniers are financially driven
Those who produce the propaganda are either financially driven or see it as a way to gain voters, but I would guess nearly all deniers have little to no financial motivation to believe what they believe. Their beliefs have more to do with identity politics, because they are part of a demographic which is heavily targeted with propaganda and at this point have a cultural need to fit in with their "tribe". Climate change becomes part of the larger narrative of elites telling everyone else what to do, and big government taking away our rights (and/or increasing taxation), so it is reflexively denied.
It isn't any different than how most liberals form their beliefs, only in their case it is scientists and professors forming their beliefs instead of oil executives. So their more liberal beliefs are almost universally more likely to be accurate even if they are still primarily driven by a tribal mentality.
Re: (Score:3)
What fucking scientist signs onto the 37 genders noise? Why isn't California a paradise yet? It's entirely controlled by Democrats, so what is the hold up? Chicago and Detroit ought to be lovely cities that should be emeralds to behold to all of how a proper Democrat city should run.
Democrats get their beliefs (at least you realize politics are opinions) from science is a bunch of shit and you know it. The only correct thing said about global warming is that it is indeed happening and humans are certainly c
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, all is fine, pretending nothing is happen because that is what precisely will happen to prevent worse climate change, until it is too late. When the rich and greedy's underwaterfront properties start going under, then it will all start happening real quick as they start screaming but by then too late.
Just accept it, chill out and take precautions. It is too late and very little will be done until major economic losses start happening the directly impact the pockets of the rich and greedy, just the wa
Re: (Score:3)
Calling sceptics denialists reveals you as a religious zealot.
The problem is that no one calls themselves denialist They all call themselves skeptics. And there are many different groups. Those who profit from it. Those who are contrary in the manner of conspiracy lovers, and those who simply parrot what they are told. And various combinations.
Calling them denialists is simply an overarching aggregation term. It is also a more civilized name for what they might otherwise be called.
Re: I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's stopping you? Oh wait, by action you mean government stealing from others to make others do stuff. You don't plan on actually doing something yourself.
When there is a hurricane do you think the government should stay silent and wait for concerned citizens to step in and do all the work? After the Pearl Harbor attacks should citizens just have bought a rifle and booked a ticket to Europe or Japan and start fighting?
Government action is the same thing as individuals taking action ourselves, only in a more organized and effective way. The call for personal responsibility is a propaganda message used by those who don't want real change but don't want to admit they are obstructing. If you want to become a better spouse or coworker that is the time for personal responsibility. If you want to deal with national or global crisis, that is the time for government action.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I think government should be abolished entirely. Without more than 40% of their income stolen and used against them, citizens will easily be able to protect against nature.
lololol. People are still being eaten by animals in states that permit carry. And that's nothing compared to tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, lightning storms, and the other assorted stuff that nature mundanely throws at people every day.
if the US didn't want to go to war with Japan they shouldn't be building up bases near Japan.
Civilization includes the act of living near people who can destroy you. I can set my neighbor's house on fire any time, but I don't.
But it was our own fault for trusting our government with defending our country. WW2 is the fourth time our government military had been crippled and was utterly useless.
What do you imagine you would have done on your own?
Re: (Score:3)
So had you been drafted to go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan you would have headed off without complaint?
Well I tried to join the Navy and Marines but couldn't get waivers for eczema and asthma (both are slight cases, but bad enough I guess), so I'm probably not a good example for the point you are trying to make.
So stop being salty about not getting your way about forcing some people to give up their livelihoods or wealth or hobbies because you happen to be more worried about the climate than they are. You are not special you have no more right a cool planet than they have to cheap oil.
I was going to write a longer response, but after seeing you dismiss climate change as just wanting a cooler planet I feel anything I say will fall on deaf ears. Climate change has the potential to be the most catastrophic danger our species has faced in hundreds of thousands of years. It certainly mi
I think you meant create (Score:2)
The US has done more to create CO2 [ourworldindata.org] than any other country. By a wide margin.
Re:I think you meant create (Score:5, Insightful)
I would REALLY like to understand. If the US is so much polluting the planet, so much more than China and India, then why is Beijing always engulfed in smog and the air is hard to breathe, while New York and LA have a pretty clean air in comparison? Why does air pollution emanating from China can be felt up to the Pacific coast, while no one complains about US pollution in Africa or Europe? (Dominant winds should bring it there...)
The data from the site you are referring seems to be rigged to shame Americans about their CO2 emissions. Just like when we talk about plastics in the ocean. All sorts of measures are imposed here, while 90% of the plastic pollution in the oceans is coming from Asia. I don't buy that shit. I'm Canadian BTW, but I stand by Americans when it comes to this kind of bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Only one of the computer models used is actually accurate, the Russian version. I suggest you research dr. Patrick Michaels as well to find some other facts. Lastly if CO2 is so terrible then why does all the alarmists fly all over the world when they could save the environment by using technology? Why is China and India not being punished while many alarmists want to blame the US which has done more to curb CO2 than any other country? what about all the wind blades and motors that get dumped in the trash after they wear out? They are not biodegradable. Why does Mann release all of his data that so many scientists use so that it can be peer reviewed properly?
So many "Whys" You have passed the test brother! Get yourself now to the Moon landing fake studios in Area 51. There's a new access point that will get you there quickly. Just go to the Pizzagate Restaurant, pledge fealty to Rudy Giuliani and FDR, and step into Elon Musk's hyperloop which will get you to Area 51 in a half hour. Along the way, you can read Hillary's emails, and find out what Chemtrails are really doing - O'Blama is using them to turn frogs gay.
Turns out that Chemtrail Juice is harmless to h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:4)
Aren't the Chinese still, in 2019, building and bringing online new coal-fired generators?
Edward Cunningham, a specialist on China and its energy markets at Harvard University, tells NPR that China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.
Source - NPR, April, 2019 [npr.org]
India is also increasing the use of coal-fired plants [trust.org]
What tortured definition of "cleaner" are you using?
Re: I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually trying: China installed six times [renewableenergyworld.com] as much new renewable generation in 2018 than the US did [wikipedia.org].
Switching the world to renewable energy [inhabitat.com] would cost $36.3T. The US uses roughly 18% [eia.gov] of all energy used in the world [ogj.com], so the US would need to spend $6.4T to switch.
In CPI adjusted dollars, the number of $1B Weather and Climate Disasters in the 80's was 2-3 per year in the US. In the past 10 years, that average has increased to over 10 $1B disasters per year. Again, those are CPI adjusted billions, so this isn't caused by inflation. [noaa.gov]
Even the limited renewable energy industry in the US already employs more people than the fossil fuel electric industry. [nrdc.org] Going all in on renewable energy would make all of those people crying "We need jobs" scream for joy.
Quite simply, the people in charge of the US -- overtly and covertly -- and the Americans supporting those people are embarrassing all Americans.
Re: (Score:3)
You must not be up to speed on the issue but we all agree that total emissions is what matters. Per capita is a meaning less number when it comes to over global impact.
Re: (Score:2)
But, as you stated stated, it could be a goose, and it would be interesting to find out why 95% of studies was showing coming up as that thing being a duck. So you should absolutely never stop looking. Once 100% of you agree, there is simply no denying anything anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
100% of people never agree. About anything. Not even really obvious things like that the sky is blue, or that Canadian bacon and pineapple are not suitable pizza toppings.
And in science that's particularly valuable because it's often those few who disagree that find the cracks in current theory that open the door to more discoveries. But almost always the new discoveries don't actually negate the old consensus, they just add new details, or occasionally whole new fields of research (such as Quantum Mech
Re: (Score:2)
e.g. 95% of all published papers that expressed an opinion regarding the cause of climate changes in the field found SOME contribution by anthropogenic sources
Re: (Score:3)
Basicly, scientific consensus is some kind of duck testing: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
And if it floats like a duck ... IT"S A WITCH !
Re:I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't help but notice a common theme to all your links - they're all regarding *medical* research which does indeed have a very large problem. In large part due to the fact that medical science is driven primarily by doctors rather than scientists, and it's long been recognized that most doctors couldn't research their way out of a paper bag. The training for applied medicine is just all wrong for research, as is the typical mindset. A doctor is taught to hold themselves to an (impossible) superhuman standard of confidence and accuracy - while a scientist should always start from the assumption that they're wrong, their beliefs can't be trusted, and need to build a sufficient preponderance of evidence to prove their theories to their harshest critics.
Basically, a doctor is trained more to be an engineer or technician for a squishy system that we only understand the basic properties of, rather than any sort of researcher.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with you that doctors are basically engineers who work with the human body.
However not all my quotations relate to medicine or even biology. Dr Ioannidis's findings apply right across the whole field of science.
Moroeover most of the people who wreaked the worst damage with their cynical and misguided theories about diet were scientists, not doctors. Indeed the doctors can be blamed mostly for passively accepting what they were told by scientists, although clinical experience should have taught them
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't help but notice a common theme to all your links - they're all regarding *medical* research which does indeed have a very large problem. In large part due to the fact that medical science is driven primarily by doctors rather than scientists, and it's long been recognized that most doctors couldn't research their way out of a paper bag.
This - a thousand times this. Medical doctors are selected and trained for ego, not for critical thinking and modulated skepticism. And medical researchers are only a tiny bit better. Its a social science, AFAIAC
Sit in on some actual scientists discussing hypotheses, and you'll see the difference immediately.
In the end, the basic experiments that show the greenhouse effect can be performed and proven by a grade school student.
The experiments that show the anti-greenhouse effect of say sulfur aerosols can also be done with a little more care. The re-release of sequestered carbon dioxide is pretty obvious. Fossil fuels can be analyzed for their CO2 content. Burn them, and the Carbon combines with Oxygen and there ya go.
The same with methane
Further experiments can be done with adjustment of greenhouse gas levels.
We can do these experiments ourselves. And they repeat.
Now we enter the realm of prediction. The planet is a complex place, so being exact is pretty difficult. But it is possible to make some pretty good predictions.
Given the release of sequestered Carbon Dioxide, and the easily proven Using the beginning of the Industrial revolution as a base, there has been some 800 TeraWatts of radiative forcing via CO2 - in 2010.
That is a lot of energy retention. That's gotta go somewhere.
Deniers, your task is this:
The simplest task would be to prove the Greenhouse effect does not exist. That will create an entire rewrite of Physics.
A more fruitful path might be showing how the greenhouse effect fails on a global scale. That's still a large rewrite of physics, because the Greenhouse effect shows that the earth would be a very cold place without it. But it isn't.
Some food for thought for the deniers. We'd like to thank you for pouring over the research and cherry picking anything that seems like an anomaly.
That gives us clues on how to fine tune the research.
Re: (Score:3)
My guess is if any of these editors get sick, they are still going to a doctor and they are still following their instructions. Coming to the conclusion that scientific research is not perfect, or even that it has significant flaws, is not the same thing as denying the effectiveness of scientific research overall. There is a big difference between complaining about drug or dieting research and arguing against special relativity or climate change, where there is overwhelming consensus among researchers.
Re:I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a consensus by vote but one by peer review.
If you don't know the difference, don't bother trying to add anything to the conversation. You wouldn't.
Re:I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that the children are actually doing this 'cause they realized that it's them that get to face the music we're playing here is beyond you, is it?
Me, I'm old. I don't really care that the planet is going to hell in 30 years. I'll most likely have gone there first. They, though, will have to clean up the shit that we leave behind.
The US isn't close to doing its job. Are you high? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the CAT were to rate the US’s projected emissions levels in 2025 under current policies, we would rate the US “Highly insufficient,” indicating that the US’s current policies in 2025 are not consistent with holding warming to below 2C, let alone limiting it to 1.5C as required under the Paris Agreement, and are instead consistent with warming between 3C and 4C: if all countries were to follow the US’s approach, warming could reach over 3C and up to 4C. This means the US’s current policies are not in line with any interpretation of a “fair” approach to the former 2C goal, let alone the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit.
The policies to achieve that insufficient target...Highly insufficient. America is doing a horrible job of meeting it's crappy target. But moron after moron always likes to claim America is 'meeting it's Paris Agreement'.
CAT estimates that, if implemented fully, the administration’s policies could by 2030 cause an increase in the U.S.’s annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the total annual emissions of the state of California.
That doesn't seem like America is doing its job...
India: India has emerged as a global leader in renewable energy, and in fact it is investing more in them than it is in fossil fuels. Having established a goal of generating 40 percent of its power through renewables by 2030, its progress has been so rapid that it could easily reach that target a decade early, so there is every opportunity for India to increase that target. CAT calculates that India’s plan is compatible with a 2 degree C increase, but that its National Energy Plan could be 1.5 degrees C compatible if the country abandoned plans to build new coal-fired power plants.
China: The good news: China is on course to meet its Paris targets. The bad news, according to CAT: Those targets are woefully inadequate, and not ambitious enough to limit warming to below 2 degrees C, let alone to 1.5 C as required under the Paris Agreement, unless other countries make much deeper reductions at comparably greater eort. China’s CO2 emissions—already the largest in the world—grew an estimated 2.3 percent increase in 2018; in fact, with current policies, China’s greenhouse gas emissions are projected to rise until at least 2030, although a recent study concluded they may in fact peak a decade earlier. The Chinese government has heavily subsidized the manufacture of electric cars and has sought to reduce the number of gasoline-powered cars on the road; in 2018, Chinese consumers bought 1.1 million electric vehicles—more than the rest of the world combined. China is the largest manufacturer of solar technology in the world, but it is also the largest consumer of coal, and is financing the construction of coal-fired power stations around the world.
Climate change report card. [nationalgeographic.com]
India - top of the class
China - shows some promise
America - barely trying
Re: (Score:2)
I have no solution. And I stopped looking for any. As I said, I have about 30 years left. I have no kids. And the planet will last another 30 years or so. I'm safe.
This is why it's not me that's hitting the streets and protesting. I have no future. They do. Provided we get our ass into gear. To me, it matters little. To them, it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are not governed by logic and reason, why should it be different for young humans?
Dismissing young people as "too stupid to know" is dangerous, though. I have seen far more older people who are too stupid to find their way out of a paper basket to consider age a valid yardstick for wisdom anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:5, Informative)
As Michael Crichton observed 16 years ago in his thoughtful paper "Aliens Cause Global Warming".
https://stephenschneider.stanf... [stanford.edu]
Don't be put off by the quirky title; Crichton explains why "consensus" is strictly a political concept, which has no place in the world of science. In simple terms, either something is true or it is not. How many people believe that it is true is completely irrelevant.
The word "denier", too, has nothing to do with science. To explain why, let me introduce someone who knew a lot more about science than I ever will.
"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
"Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained".
- Richard P Feynman, "The Value of Science," public address at the National Academy of Sciences (Autumn 1955); published in What Do You Care What Other People Think (1988); republished in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman (1999) edited by Jeffrey Robbins, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... [wikiquote.org]
Re: (Score:2)
while at the same time decrying how "consensus" is unscientific
But consensus is not science.
It is if everyone agrees because they've come to that position independently.
Re: (Score:2)
But when the scientists are in consensus on the science, that is both.
sea level rise accelerating (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not exactly a proof but is enough to shift the burden of proof. It's assumed true until evidence comes along that says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:2)
Nice motivated reasoning there.
Of course, the sun's contribution to the temperature has been quantified. Satellite measurement show the 11-year sunspot cycle is responsible for a 0.05C to 0.07C swing. Measurements also show that there has been no statistically significant growth of solar irradiance.
Re: I hear the deniers already shouting ... (Score:3)
Are you trying to prove that CO2 affects the climate? No one denies that.
Are you trying to prove humans pose an 'existential threat' to the planet? You've got a lot more work to do...
A/CO2 gases create greenhouse effects, B/Cows produce CO2 gases, if both are true than cows are the problem? Of course not, they are a contributor, as are humans and other sources of CO2, to varying degrees which have not been established.
If I question the premise that humans are the greatest source of greenhouse gases, that do
Re: (Score:2)
In 1900, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 270 ppm or 0.027 %, as we can read in textbooks from that era. Today, we have an atmospheric CO2 level of 410 ppm or 0.041 %, something you can measure yourself. We know the size of the atmosphere, and we can calculate, that this increase of 140 ppm amounts to about 700 billion metric tons of CO2. To create that much CO2, we have to burn 270 billion metric tons of carbon. Currently
Re: (Score:2)
Your proof is flawed, like a lot of IPCC science. i.e.: it's only true if humans source more CO2 than the environment is able to sink. CO2 has been around long before humans walked the earth and it will remain here long after.
CO2 doesn't dig itself up and burn itself nonstop constantly though does it. At the same time as burning down the rainforests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to establish real solutions, evaluate the cost of the real solutions and then do a risk analysis and cost analysis.
You cant evaluate that the risk is high enough to justify the cost of prevention if you dont have that information.
One down... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you assume the conclusions remain valid without evaluating all the information?
Why did it take 10 months to retract the paper after it was found out it had flaws? Flaws so bad, they retracted it.
I have a guess. They where awaiting the release of the IPCC report, which references that faulty paper.
https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/p... [report.ipcc.ch]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry to say, but just about the entire rest of the world thinks that to many morons have to much say in the US and to much opportunity to make noise on national TV. That entire rest does even include one-party propaganda-driven nations like china.
Watching some of the debates on US TV has me observe in awe and amazement yet unseen depths of stupidity and cultural deprivation come to light. That also goes for the US climate/eco debate. Mind you, we have trash-TV in Germany too, any many of my fellow cit
Re: (Score:2)
Allthough a 10.000 billion industry STILL hasn't disproven climate change.
When you are done patting yourself on the back ... any solutions are going to have to be technological. Let me know when Green parties are ready to go full nuclear, or when we get some effective carbon sequestration technology.
Well I guess Filet o' Fish will go off the menu. (Score:2)
Evidence and predictions (Score:3)
The single most important change that's needed in the "debate" is to distinguish observations - which are direct evidence - from predictions - which are speculative. The models simply will never convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. But climate change is happening now, on a global scale, and at an unprecedented catastrophic speed. That part is not open to debate.
It's fine to say we don't have the solution (turning back the clock on the Industrial Revolution is not a serious proposal), but it's time to start working on one.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like with a lot of things, at a certain point, you will have to stop 'having a discussion' and start doing something.
There are many things we can do that will be beneficial and not controversial.
We can always have a discussion about the controversial proposed solutions, but at least start working with the ones that make common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
"Unprecedented catastrophic speed"
Please demonstrate this with sources. Because stating something isn't open to debate is not useful.
Re: (Score:3)
A clean kill of the CO2-driven-climate hypothesis:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20... [wattsupwiththat.com]
Sure, there is some global warming, due to a long-standing retreat from the Ice Age, less than 2C degrees a century and not correlated to CO2 rise. No big deal really.
Actually, it can be shown that there is virtually no global warming in Southern Hemisphere, discernible to microwave sensing satellites:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20... [wattsupwiththat.com]
How that that be? Yes, most of the emissions come from the Nothern Hemisphere, but the CO2 is
Re: (Score:3)
Demonstrably false. Climate change following the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event was far more rapid.
(I'm mostly joking, but you should be careful not to embellish, it undermines your argument)
hurry up and die (Score:2)
Give up your SUV? No? Then stop whining (Score:2)
Regardless of the cause, climate change isn't the problem. Our wastefulness and inefficient use of resources is. Even if the climate didn't change, our species seems dedicated to wastefully exploiting our environment. Correcting that behaviour would require giving up some things in our current way of life. But what would people be willing to give up? Single use plastic? Yeah but not packing material (who wants damaged goods) or plastic cutlery (so convenient) or even plastic grocery bags (remember pap
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not 'out there'. The problem is you.
Same happened with AIDS, the Catholic Church told all those sex-mad Africans to abstain, no effect on the AIDS stats whatsoever.
Govts started giving out free condoms, AIDS numbers took a big tumble.
A solution will only work if it doesn't affect people's enjoyment.
We need a global Eco-Lord/Baron. (Score:2)
The dutch and the northern Gemans had problems coordinating their dike construction, resulting in infighting, floods and no real problems solved. It was an all-out classic tragedy of the commons. Then they introduced the concept of a "Dike Lord". He got to say how it's done and his job was to prevent the floods. Everyone followed his orders and after that they split up the remaining land and resouces.
We need the same thing for our planet and its eco-system reservation. Now.
Most sea level rise isn't due to ice (Score:5, Informative)
Water is most dense at 4C, and while it doesn't expand much as a proportion, ocean heating expands a billion cubic kilometers of water so the surface level effect is disproportionately large. Secondly, water already at its compressibility limit (deep water, a large fraction of the volume) expands more per degree of warming than shallow water. Up until now, most sea level rise has been due to heat expansion rather than ice melt, though as atmospheric temperatures continue higher and Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets begin shedding rapidly, that contribution will shift.
We know the solution, actually (Score:3)
Just expire all fossil fuel infrastructure depreciation, deductions, subsidies, exemptions, and exclusions.
Let the Invisible Hand swat it down.
No fleet discounts, no expensed fossil fuel vehicle or power plant repairs.
Cut it off at the source.
No 1858 mining law royalties for fossil fuel extraction.
Make them pay what a retail donut store on a park pays.
We all know that will work, but we're addicted to the spice.
Re: (Score:2)
Those forest fires this year have thrown in the atmosphere an amount particulate matter which is comparable to the Krakatoa eruption. https://www.fagain.co.uk/node/... [fagain.co.uk]
While the effect is localised to Russia and central asia at the moment (they have several degrees lower than average temperature this summer and autumn), it will probably spread the same way as effects from Krokotoa 1883 and the Minoan
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly climate alarmists only care about the forest fires in Brazil because a political opponent is currently in power there.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to build things, not go on marches
This should be the key message. Of course the protesters will argue that they are marching to get us to build things, but at this point the ever-shriller protests are becoming counter-productive. Half the people are tuning out and giving up, the other half is clamouring for action, any action, anything that looks good and feels right. But we should not just build things, we need to build the right things. That takes thought and deliberation, not anger and panic.
Re:This again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to do a study to find out the effects of no longer punching ourselves in the head? This is why we can't have nice things. We know what the results of continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry look like and they are unacceptable. It's like you want to read up on the potential benefits of pulling your scrotum out of a meat grinder. I only wish stupidity like that caused sterility.
Re: (Score:2)
We know what the results of continuing to subsidize the fossil fuel industry look like and they are unacceptable
No we don't. Estimates vary wildly, from a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions if we cut all subsidies (a huge shift, with inevitable far reaching economic ramifications), to a mere 1.5% according to a reputable EU study, which concluded that while the amount of subsidy is large, it is a relatively small amount for each unit of energy and has little effect on the market price. The subsidy for each liter at the pump is a tiny fraction of the rather stiff fuel taxes. Those taxes have only had a very limited effe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
an other study. (by a very left leaning organization though) : https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/... [vox.com]
Hardly surprising, as a rough definition of the political "left" is "people who think that a lot of things should and must be changed". In contrast to the right, which consists roughly of "people who think things are just fine the way they are".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Scott Adams fails to mention:
- that at the moment we are doing the exact opposite of deploying tech to extract CO2: we are destroying jungle and forests at an alarming rate, while a lot of it is being englulfed in fires - due to draught caused by global warming.
- that there are positive feedback loops adding more CO2 to the atmosphere due to global warming. The above is just one of several.
- that nuclear is a great energy source, until:
#1 The unexpected happens, earthquake, tsunami, terrorist attack, sabotage... and everything goes to shit.
#2 An old plant has to be decommissioned, and the energy companies no longer feel responsible for the radioactive pile of junk and offload the enormous cost of dismantling to the taxpayer [spiegel.de]
So maybe, climate change is a bit scary after all. Like the Cuban missile crisis, it does have apocalyptic potential if things don't start to change, like right now.
Re: (Score:2)
#2 When the company has a contract with the government to run a plant for a certain amount of time and the government wants to break that contract to shut down perfectly safe plants early, then yes, the companies would like government to pay for t
Re:This again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the technology exists to lower our CO2 significantly, and we don't have to spend a lot of money to make it happen.
This reminds me of the joke where a Mathematician is in a room with a fire and a fire extinguisher, declares that a solution exists and then goes back to sleep.
It's funny because the Mathematician is an idiot.
The current USA government has gone out of its way to allow coal fired power plants to continue without restriction.
The Australian and Chinese governments have approved new coal mines this year. The Australian mine has an expected operational life of over 60 years.
The fact is emissions continue to rise and have every year, the first IPCC report outlining a clear case for action was in 1990. Thirty years ago we knew what was required and how to do it.
You are right, a solution exists. But we aren't doing it, and the policy of most major governments around the world is to go back to sleep.
Re: (Score:3)
The joke (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How on earth could anyone possibly moderate the parent "Flamebait"? It is exactly the opposite: calm, reasonable, politely phrased - exactly the type of post we should be encouraging.
Quis moderavit ipsos moderatores?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The GP is a rabid pro-nuclear troll who shits all over any thread about renewable energy. You'll notice he hits it 2-3 times in his post, including us needing more nuclear ships. Plenty of people are very much over his trolling, and thus try to mod him into oblivion to discourage his antics.
In addition, his comment is essentially "we don't need speeches and activists, we need action", but if there was actually more action, we wouldn't see people making speeches and being activists. We all know what the solu
Re: (Score:2)
No. (Score:2)
No, we most certainly don't got this.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't we hear the same thing about the battery packs in hybrids back when they came out? My 2006 Hybrid Toyota Highlander is still going strong after 13 years and 160,000 miles with no apparent degradation in performance, electric or ICE. If you look at it, it wouldn't sell for $6k, but has tens of thousands of good miles left in it.
Re: (Score:2)
there's probably never going to be an EV that will replace the $6k used ICE economy sedan which I bought a few years ago. (Because by the time a used EV is $6k, it's because it needs a battery pack that costs more than the car is worth)
There's an encouraging trend in battery manufacturing costs: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/d... [ucsusa.org]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Or I can just stop reading this site, which I'm doing and more and more. Used to read daily, now maybe once a week. Keep up with the leftist climate drivel, which is nothing but politics, and I'm out.
Re:Getting Boring (Score:5, Informative)
Because Climate Change will affect technology, both how we use it and what new technology we must develop so we don't fry. And you think of yourself as a tech person?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. It's naive to think that a global change on this level wouldn't have an impact on the technology we develop or use, and how it functions. Also, Climate Change is not a political topic first (though everything is political really). First and foremost, it's a scientific topic and directly caused by the technology we currently use.
Re:The oceans can not be rising (Score:5, Informative)
United States: Where to begin? CAT already ranked U.S. Paris targets as “insufficient.” With the Trump Administration’s ongoing hostility toward climate action, it now categorizes the country’s efforts as “critically insufficient,” their lowest ranking. Among the swings that the present administration has taken at its predecessor’s climate policy: It has attempted to roll back the Clean Power Plan; sought to relax vehicle efficiency standards to such an extent that even vehicle manufacturers have objected; and announced plans to weaken regulations to limit HFC emissions and regulation of methane leaks from oil and gas production.
The administration has been working to actively censor climate science within its own agencies, and has established a climate change review panel tasked with questioning the findings of the country’s National Climate Assessment. The leader of that panel is a climate change denier who has stated that “the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”
CAT estimates that, if implemented fully, the administration’s policies could by 2030 cause an increase in the U.S.’s annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the total annual emissions of the state of California.
The administration has signaled its intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong! It was fixed with the Paris Accord. Remember when those politicians flew to Paris and signed that paper and had a party afterwards? Pretty sure it fixed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want the truth, here it is.
The global economy WILL undergo a dramatic transformation. Period.
The only question is whether we will be in control, or just desperately retreating from a situation of our own making.
Continuing to pretend everything will magically turn out okay is only going to make the whole situation more expensive, and it will kill more people. Sadly, however, it will not kill discriminately. The people who are most responsible for the problem will not die first.
or not? (Score:4, Informative)
hyperbole is no oneâ(TM)s friend
Nature is retracting a 2018 paper which found that the oceans are warming much faster than predicted by previous models of climate change. [retractionwatch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hello, Martin [youtube.com].
Models are data (Score:3)