Two Top Scientists Warn That The Amazon, and Earth, Have Reached a Tipping Point (msn.com) 281
An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post:
"The precious Amazon is teetering on the edge of functional destruction and, with it, so are we," Thomas Lovejoy of George Mason University and Carlos Nobre of the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, both of whom have studied the world's largest rainforest for decades, wrote in an editorial in the journal Science Advances. "Today, we stand exactly in a moment of destiny: The tipping point is here, it is now."
Combined with recent news that the thawing Arctic permafrost may be beginning to fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and that Greenland's ice sheet is melting at an accelerating pace, it's the latest hint that important parts of the climate system may be moving toward irreversible changes at a pace that defies earlier predictions...
In interviews, Lovejoy and Nobre said they decided to sound a dire alarm about the Amazon after witnessing the acceleration of troubling trends. The combination of rising temperatures, crippling wildfires and ongoing land clearing for cattle ranching and crops has extended dry seasons, killed off water-sensitive vegetation and created conditions for more fire. The Amazon is 17 percent deforested, but for the large portion of it inside Brazil, the figure is closer to 20 percent. The fear is that soon there will be so little forest that the trees, which not only soak up enormous quantities of rainwater but also give off mist that aids agriculture and sustains innumerable species, won't be able to recycle enough rainfall At that point, much of the rainforest could decline into a drier savanna ecosystem. Rainfall patterns would change across much of South America. Several hundred billion tons of carbon dioxide could wind up in the atmosphere, worsening climate change. And such a feedback loop would be tough to reverse.
That point of no return, commonly referred to by scientists as a tipping point, "is much closer than we anticipated," Nobre said in an interview.... In combination, the Amazon and Arctic news underscores that even as humans are largely failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth may increase such emissions yet further. Still, it is possible to slow the transformation of the Amazon through reforestation, researchers said. "A tipping point is a way to talk about a moment of system shift or system change," Lovejoy said. "In this case, it's not going to be instantaneous, and that's good news. It allows you to do something about it."
Combined with recent news that the thawing Arctic permafrost may be beginning to fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and that Greenland's ice sheet is melting at an accelerating pace, it's the latest hint that important parts of the climate system may be moving toward irreversible changes at a pace that defies earlier predictions...
In interviews, Lovejoy and Nobre said they decided to sound a dire alarm about the Amazon after witnessing the acceleration of troubling trends. The combination of rising temperatures, crippling wildfires and ongoing land clearing for cattle ranching and crops has extended dry seasons, killed off water-sensitive vegetation and created conditions for more fire. The Amazon is 17 percent deforested, but for the large portion of it inside Brazil, the figure is closer to 20 percent. The fear is that soon there will be so little forest that the trees, which not only soak up enormous quantities of rainwater but also give off mist that aids agriculture and sustains innumerable species, won't be able to recycle enough rainfall At that point, much of the rainforest could decline into a drier savanna ecosystem. Rainfall patterns would change across much of South America. Several hundred billion tons of carbon dioxide could wind up in the atmosphere, worsening climate change. And such a feedback loop would be tough to reverse.
That point of no return, commonly referred to by scientists as a tipping point, "is much closer than we anticipated," Nobre said in an interview.... In combination, the Amazon and Arctic news underscores that even as humans are largely failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth may increase such emissions yet further. Still, it is possible to slow the transformation of the Amazon through reforestation, researchers said. "A tipping point is a way to talk about a moment of system shift or system change," Lovejoy said. "In this case, it's not going to be instantaneous, and that's good news. It allows you to do something about it."
Amazon (Score:3, Funny)
People (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I kind of like the Brazilian guy's argument of "what gives you the right to impose ultimatums on Brazil burning down its forests for profit when you all went and burned down your forests for profit already?"
Offloading all the blame on Brazil for being late to the game is retarded at best. Don't be retarded. Look beyond the immediate symptom and find the actual issue at play.
People suck, but I are one (Score:2)
Partially true
At least progress is being made within the argument itself, amongst the dominant species on the planet that has exhibited an unprecedented ability to terraform the environment to suit its needs. We have mostly progressed beyond the nothing's happening argument to the Is the change we're witnessing anthropogenic argument.
An truly advanced worldly civilization might offer Brazil (and other nation-states) financial incentives to stem the deforestation of the Amazon, which is essentially just po
Re: (Score:2)
Partially true
At least progress is being made within the argument itself, amongst the dominant species on the planet that has exhibited an unprecedented ability to terraform the environment to suit its needs. We have mostly progressed beyond the nothing's happening argument to the Is the change we're witnessing anthropogenic argument.
An truly advanced worldly civilization might offer Brazil (and other nation-states) financial incentives to stem the deforestation of the Amazon, which is essentially just poor people trying to eke out a living. Just in fucking case we are the cause; and if we are, we have the capacity to be the cure.
No it is not poor people trying to eek out a living. The big profits are being had by a small number of log poachers who support the assholes in power. And by a small number of range land cattle men that also support the assholes in power. The farms are not sustainable and only last a few years until the soil becomes useless. The biomass is largely in the trees. In case you have not noticed there is a huge amount of hardwood now being sold cheap for flooring, it is very trendy to put in "tropical hardwood"
Re: (Score:2)
I think offering incentives to keep the forest is approaching the problem from the wrong end.
The cutting of the forest is driven by profit and will continue to be driven by profit for so long as there is profit to be had. Deprive them of the ability to profit from cutting the forest, and poof. No more cutting.
This is of course the much, much harder target that no one wants to go at, because that would flip the table on a lot of high-end industries depending on this palm oil to survive.
Re:People (Score:4, Interesting)
People don't like to hear things that make them uncomfortable so they prefer to pretend this is not a problem (or if it is, it doesn't affect them personally.) No amount of evidence can convince them - they don't want to exit Dreamland - but you can make them very angry trying. Brazil should be given ultimatums to stop the destruction of an important world resource.
I'll tell you what people don't want to hear. People don't want to hear that the world cannot be saved by the power we can get from wind, water, and sun. People don't want to hear that we need nuclear power to get our CO2 emissions to zero. With nuclear power (and also power from wind, water, and sun) we don't have to "exit Dreamland". We are living in the future. What we have now is a world people dreamed of for thousands of years. We don't have to impose poverty on ourselves to get to zero carbon, all we need to remove the threat of global warming is to move to the proven technologies that are safe, clean, low in cost, high in energy return, low in demand for raw materials and land, and are abundant.
We need onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, geothermal power, and nuclear fission reactors. We need ALL of them, but it's only nuclear power that seems to get the most opposition from the global warming alarmists. Why is that? My guess is because it doesn't "hurt", that it's nearly invisible. Nuclear power does not require any sacrifice, because it's already proven safer than anything we have for energy, it's so abundant that we will run out of sunshine before we run out of uranium and thorium for fuel, and because the power plants are so small for the power it outputs they just disappear. Solar panels and off shore windmills, on the other hand, those we can see. Those we cannot hide among the trees of a forest, or among the buildings of so many other grey buildings in a city like a nuclear power plant.
No amount of evidence will convince these people that wind, water, and sun will not power a modern economy. They insist we destroy our economy to save the planet. We don't have to do this. We can save the planet and stay in the "Dreamland" we created. But we need nuclear to do this. Is nuclear power any real threat to anyone? How can anyone fear nuclear power more than global warming?
These people are showing hate of technological progress, a hate of freedom and abundance, they hate the people that bring this progress to the world, and most of all they hate themselves. These people have had so many threats removed from them that their minds had to create a threat. They saw a threat in global warming, but that's a solved problem if we get enough nuclear power to replace the coal and natural gas we use for heat and electricity. So then the real threat is not global warming any more, the great threat is nuclear power.
People don't want to hear that the problem of global warming is solved. They hold protests and hold up traffic. They demand something be done while simultaneously stopping people from doing anything with lawsuits and vandalism. They don't want to hear that there is nothing to fear any more. No amount of evidence will convince them. They want to stay in their nightmare, and drag everyone into this nightmare with them.
if this modern industrialized civilization (Score:3)
Re: if this modern industrialized civilization (Score:3)
Our kids donâ(TM)t.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be surprised (Score:2)
"irreversible changes" (Score:2, Informative)
Ironic, as over geological timescales, Earth CO2 will be dropping to 0% as CO2 absorption via weathering of rocks outstrips the slowing co2 production via volcanism [skepticalscience.com]. over around the next 600 million years [wikipedia.org].
Earth CO2 has been between half as much and 10 times as much [wikipedia.org] throughout history as it is right now. If CO2 rises it just means the planet becomes hot, rich in vegetation and ideal for huge cold blooded herbivorous lizards for a while again.
Re:"irreversible changes" (Score:4, Insightful)
If CO2 rises it just means the planet becomes hot, rich in vegetation and ideal for huge cold blooded herbivorous lizards for a while again.
Great if you are a huge, cold-blooded herbivorous lizard. Less good, if you are a marginally evolved ape relying on complex world-wide networks for survival and comfort. And of course the transition sometime is a bit uncomfortable [wikipedia.org]. But you may get to brag about "experiencing the Second Great Dying" to your grandchildren...ooops, maybe not.
Re: "irreversible changes" (Score:2)
Refugees (Re:"irreversible changes") (Score:2, Insightful)
So next time millions of climate refugees present themselves at other peoples' borders, just tell them to turn back and sit this one out.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, dude, I'm not touching the immigration issue with a 10 foot pole, Sorry to be harsh, but that's your problem, not mine.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't mine, yet. But it will be. And it will definitely be your problem too.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be interesting when the refugee crisis becomes so serious that your "government" asserts a National Emergency and Martial Law, giving too much control to the control freaks who are constantly salivating for it. It won't be your problem until it becomes your problem, with very little warning. History provides plenty of examples worth studying.
I am optimistic that the real shitstorm won't arrive until after my wife and I have gone due to natural causes.
Re:"irreversible changes" (Score:5, Informative)
As cliche and simple as it is, check the xkcd image of the warming.
It's the time frame in which it's occurring. It might feel slow - but geologically, it's astronomically fast.
We're fucked.
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're fucked.
No, we are doing just fine.
We need to stop telling the next generation that by the time they are old enough to have children of their own that the climate will collapse. It will not.
In 100 years there will still be birds flying overhead, the air and water will still be clean, the trees will still be growing, we will still have food, and while everyone reading this may all be gone the planet will still have billions of happy and healthy humans living on it.
Nearly every day I see something new on how someone
Re: (Score:3)
This post reads entirely like someone who has little understanding of science, mathematics, inertia but definitely knows how to "someone think of the children".
Some of us are thinking of the children, we're not having them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so you live on geologic time scales then? Well, that's nice for you.
I am going to be around (fingers crossed) for at least a few more decades; I have children and younger friends. And, oh yes, I give a shit about the large-scale, multi-generational survival and betterment of the entire human r
Darn timezones (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate Deniers
Pardon the pedantry, but is it so hard for people to keep "change" in "climate change denier" included?
You cannot deny a climate; "climate denier" isn't shorthand, it's just wrong, and really dumb looking/sounding.
Re: (Score:2)
But not more dumb than HIV virus etc. ...
Teeter totter (Score:2)
The article is a mess (Score:2)
They start with rate of deforestation of the Amazon, which is entirely under the control of the Brazilian government. That's an easy one, go talk to them.
But then they go off into a bunch of tangents and tie them all together into a neat package. Unless the Brazilian government does something today some farmer will chop down some more trees, which will cause less CO2 uptake, which will cause Greenland to melt, which will raise the sea level to nipple height on the Statue of Liberty. But on the positive s
Re: (Score:2)
which is entirely under the control of the Brazilian government. That's an easy one, go talk to them.
How can fires that are out of control be under the control of some government?
What about Australia, if stopping the fire is as simple as calling the Australian Government, please give me thier number, I take care of it right now. I wonder why you did not call Brazil or Australia if it so easy?
Another tipping point... (Score:2)
...I'm getting dizzy. We've passed so many tipping points, so many points of no return. Just as well buy popcorn and enjoy the show. /s
Seriously, if every article turns up the emotions to eleventy, it becomes hard to tell fake news and crap reporting from serious science. Worse, every environmental article rants about climate change, even when that has nothing at all to do with the article itself. Dead zones in the sea? Caused by climate change ^H^H^H^H^H^H agricultural runoff. Ocean acidification off the c
We need to save the Amazon (Score:3)
I've done my part - signed up for a prime membership and plenty of recurring orders that I never check the price hikes on.
Would be a shame to lose the Amazon. We all need to support Bezos during these challenging times.
Amazon is dying due to Europe and CHina (Score:3)
They all said it wasn't safe to play in traffic (Score:2, Insightful)
They all said it wasn't safe to play in traffic.
So we stopped playing in traffic and are still here.
Then they told us it was bad to drink paint thinner
So we didn't do that too. We are still here.
They told us the ozone layer was being destroyed
But we did something and we are still here.
Now they are going to tell us something else is bad?
Guess what we are still here. Enough with the doomsaying.
(We solved the problem so it wasn't a problem. The logic of a WindBourne)
Re: They all said it wasn't safe to play in traffi (Score:2)
Your point, well made as it may be, is not evidence of anything.
I told someone giving me 10 bucks would save his life. He paid. Heâ(TM)s still alive.
And now telling you all: paying 10 bucks to me will really save your life. My track record is provably good. Pay up.
Re:OK great (Score:5, Insightful)
Denying you have cancer won't make it go away. Just because a couple of doctors were wrong about the exact date/time of your death doesn't mean it went away.
You have cancer. The truth of that doesn't depend on knowing the exact date of your death down to the nearest minute.
Re: OK great (Score:3, Informative)
That reminds me of another argument I hear all the time ...
"Well sure communism has failed every time we've tried it, but that wasn't REAL communism and it doesn't mean it's a bad idea! THIS time it will totally work!"
Poverty, despair, collapse, repeat ad-nauseum.
Sorry, man. I try to be an open minded guy and give people the benefit of the doubt, but after you've kicked me in the nuts for the third time I'm gonna be a little hesitant to let you get close again.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry man, I try to be an open minded guy and give people the benefit of the doubt, but after you've kicked me in the nuts for the 400th time I'm gonna be a little hesitant to let you get close again.
The problem is not the name of the system, it's the assholes running it.
The way things are going, too much economic and consequently political power has been gathered in the hands of too few.
The problem with Soviet communism is essentially the same as the problem with highly concentrated capital, because both e
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The underlying problem with communism is that on a large scale, there is no practical way to hold those who might wield more authority accountable to those that do not.
The lack of accountability leads to abuse of power on account of normal human greed, and this is why communism does not work in anything larger than isolated communities with perhaps a few hundred people at most... the number is small enough that everybody can directly know everyone else, or at least someone in their immediate family, and
Re: (Score:2)
The underlying problem with communism is that on a large scale, there is no practical way to hold those who might wield more authority accountable to those that do not.
No it is not. In "true communism" you simply would vote like in any other "system" about who is ruling, aka Parliament etc.
The communist states we had were remanents of revolutions and had nothing much to do with communism ...
the number is small enough that everybody can directly know everyone else, or at least someone in their immediate fami
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, what is helpful at the individual scale is harmful at a global scale. And, as we apply denial on the species level, it will lead to a significant die-off or extinction. When exactly? Who can say? W
Re: (Score:2)
Actually every snake oil doctor has a 1/60 chance to progonose the right minute. If you give him a +/- 5 minutes window it would even be a 1/5 chance ...
The day and hour is of course another matter.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s a little bit self evident. Dumb people are typically poorer. Poor people can’t afford to fly as often (if at all), therefore democrats fly more often because they’re (typically) smarter and richer.
Re:OK great (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no rational basis for climate denial and it is almost uniquely an American phenomenon.
Re: OK great (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s not an American phenomenon, but it is an old white male conservative phenomenon, worldwide.
Just look at Australiaâ(TM)s government for an example. Australia is literally burning, all the chief firefighters carefully explain how climate change has caused this (reduces burn off season, etc) and the Australian government just says âoenah, what would you know!â. Coincidence that Australia has massive amounts of coal?
Re: (Score:2)
there is no evidence that white conservatives behave more irrational than conservatives of color.
Quite the contrary, in fact. White conservatives have long been in power (literally since Athens), it makes sense for them to want to maintain the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the Middle East? In Asia? In modern day Africa?
Yes, people with lighter-color skin have been privileged in all of those places (including most of Africa!) throughout most of recorded history.
Re:OK great (Score:5, Informative)
it is almost uniquely an American phenomenon.
Climate change denial is also common in Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehehe, I hope they have fun denying their country is burning to cinder. Nope, no climate change here, its all the 'roos' fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Many many of what counts as conservatives here, do not believe in it. And that is despite all the evidence from our detailed national temperature records. Data from agriculture and so forth.
For example the position of the increasingly popular AfD is the usual denial arguments like: CO2 isn't bad, it's all natural, the climate models are inaccurate and evidence doesn't back them up, and of course it's a conspiracy by the IPCC aga
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many many of what counts as conservatives here, do not believe in it.
That is nonsense. The governement e.g. is conservative since 2 decades, probably longer, depending who you count conservative.
The friday for future movement started in GERMANY ...
As far as I know the AfD has no stance on CO2 or climate change ...
Re: (Score:2)
The U.K. just asked me to hold his beer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OK great (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate change is not deeply political, the conservative right promotes this trope in the hopes of discrediting the actual scientists. And if you don't think rectifying climate change will require changing the economies of countries, then you fail to understand how we got into this predicament. The Earth doesn't give a flying rat's ass about your economies, it is a system with feedback and feedforward loops. Screw with it hard enough, and get climate change.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's adorable.
How do you pay for it?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:OK great (Score:4, Insightful)
Making the changes necessary to avert climate disaster is going to put a lot of people out of work by necessity. The point of the GND is to make sure those people have a soft landing through retraining, social welfare, and public works projects that create jobs. If we don't make economic changes to do that, all those displaced people will just vote in someone who will dismantle the ecological changes we need to survive.
Re:OK great (Score:4, Insightful)
Climate science has become deeply political, on both sides I might add.
No it hasn't. The science is as sounds as it ever was. There's politics around dealing with the consequences, and politics about fuckwits trying to deny the science that conflicts with their worldview and politics around governmental and etc bodies trying to do something about it, but the science is not politicised.
What we do have is a bunch of useful idiots who like to conflate all the non science parts with the science in order to shed doubt on the whole thing.
That ranges from funding studies with desirable outcomes
None of the actual science funding bodies have ever done that. More FUD trying to conflate political money from outside with the actual science. And even in that case its not "both sides".
scientist being fired (or "defunded") for wrongthink
And this is a "both sides" thing how? I know of no universities who have done this, but there was a story about pressure on the EPA. That only came from one side.
That doesn't help convince people
The job of scientists is only to convince other scientists and they're neither trained nor paid to communicate with the general public. This isn't generally a problem in most areas. Do you magically expect scientists to learn a new skillset then work for free? Or give up their careers in science? Maybe we should expect some grown up behaviour from the general public but given your post I do agree that expecting rationality and sense is far too much to ask.
Another problem is that the climate issue is being used to push other political agendas, from socialism to government subsidies to certain industries.
That has *nothing* to do with the science, you really ought to know that.
Also your "both sides" argument is utterly facile. Both sides do stupid things for sure, but climate change denialism is firmly the purview of the right and the left doing other stupid shit in no way justifies reality denial.
Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating a lot of things and drawing inaccurate conclusions.
Yes science has its own internal politics. That doesn't make the science political in the way is very clear I was talking about because the internal politics of science isn't on the national right/left divide. It's about who's on the funding panels and jockeying for the field's major award and so on.
The whole left right political divide which you've provided plenty of examples of has nothing to do with the science. By conflating the two yo
Re: (Score:2)
You mention funding in the same sentence where you try to imply it's not political in the national sense. Tell me, where do you think that funding comes from? Do you think scientists ( who are, by and large, quite intelligent ) ignore national politics when it comes to funding their research? Do you think scientists themselves are somehow above national politics?
Doesn't that sound a bit...silly?
Climate science is complicated to the point where a very small fraction of a percent of people will fully under
Re: (Score:2)
The funding comes from funding bodies. The funding bodies are given block grants by the government to cover certain areas. You're implying the government pays scientists to give them results they like. You have no evidence of that, so either provide some of setup with your nasty insinuations.
As for the science, you are still refusing to admit the excellent track record of science. You know it works. What's magic about climate science that means it doesn't?
And you know speak for yourself about your ignorance
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The universe will not notice the absence of humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen this doomsday crap about every 6 months for 50 years
No you haven't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OK great (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe the reason we're still here is because enough people listened to the doomsday crap every 6 months and managed to delay the result.
The real question is, if no one would have mentioned anything, and we wouldn't have researched alternatives for the past decades, would we still be here now?
Re:OK great (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do too good of a job fixing things most people don't think you have done anything at all. :(
A few people worked very hard to deal with food issues and massively increase crop yields or the predictions would have been true. The same happened with drilling for oil, pollution in LA, crime in cities etc. All of these would have been major disasters if a few people had not stepped up and fixed or massively reduced the problem.
I think it is a lot like Y2K. Most people now think that was some kind of bullshit alarm and see nothing bad happening as proof nothing would. However, I saw companies work VERY hard to fix issues all over their systems and in test runs knew their systems would fail and the results would be catastrophic.
It almost seems like the admin that does such a good job of fixing things that people think they are just lazy and doing nothing. They fire the admin and a few days later the entire system is burning to the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
A few people worked very hard to deal with food issues and massively increase crop yields or the predictions would have been true.
The predictions were false. They would have only been true under the assumption of no progress, which is a stupid assumption.
Here's my prediction: Progress in many areas will continue. Humanity will muddle through.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is a lot like Y2K. Most people now think that was some kind of bullshit alarm and see nothing bad happening as proof nothing would. However, I saw companies work VERY hard to fix issues all over their systems and in test runs knew their systems would fail and the results would be catastrophic.
Yep. It's been estimated that we spent $100 billion on Y2K fixes in the US alone. But all the douche in the street knows about it is that nothing much failed, and they don't think at all about all the hours of work that went into achieving that.
Re: OK great (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a bit like the Y2K problem, which wasn't a problem because enough people managed to fix the issue.
Maybe the reason we're still here is because enough people listened to the doomsday crap every 6 months and managed to delay the result.
That's a fun thought, but no. Technological improvements like LED lights and more efficient appliances, vehicles, etc. (which, generally, had dick all to do with people "listening" to the doomsayers) helped slow things down a little, but not in any meaningful way. Certainly not enough to turn "the world will end in 1988!" into "the world will end in 2028!".
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a bit like the Y2K problem, which wasn't a problem because enough people managed to fix the issue.
Except it's not, all of these claims have been on the equivalent of "the sky is falling" "we're all doomed" "the end is near" types of screeching for decades, and really none of them have come to pass even though these were sure-fire things. The end was coming no matter what people said.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's not, all of these claims have been on the equivalent of "the sky is falling" "we're all doomed" "the end is near" types of screeching for decades
There were no such claims, neither in the Y2K crisis not in the current climate crisis.
And if stupid idiots like you are ruling, yes: we all will be doomed. I'm 52, so perhaps not me myself. but my nephews and nieces are young enough to be hit.
You probably have a pretty weird definition of "all". Perhaps we replace the word doomed by affected. Perhaps y
Re: OK great (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, we should continue to pollute and destroy our environment when alternatives are available because nothing bad might happen.
Makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change may be a long-term problem, but it does not appear to warrant that panic that politicians desire.
Indeed, this is the best time there has ever been to be alive on this planet. Life is way better today than it was in pre-industrial 1850. And all those metrics are going to continue to improve quite in spite of whatever the climate does.
I point that out all the time, but many people seem happier worrying about the end of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We know that increased CO2 leads to better crop yield. And we have records of great booms in human culture from the bursts of warm periods. So why do we want to avoid those things?
Firstly because we're already past the point where crops gain anything from increased CO2 concentration, and secondly because a slight crop yield increase isn't worth the laundry list of dangers associated with global warming anyway - such as a decrease in practical arable land locations around our established civilizations. Crop yields were fine in the '50s TYVM. Also indoor/vertical farming would make it a moot point as the indoor CO2 concentration could be artificially adjusted.
As far as "ocean acidification", you know it's actually neutralizing - not acidifying? Or are you unfamiliar with the pH scale?
This is a silly attempt at
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.coralreefimagebank... [coralreefimagebank.org]
https://www.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]
We are making improvements in some areas but there's plenty going on that is still worrying. So far as I know this is the only planet humans are going to be able to live on for
Re: (Score:2)
Conditions are not improving in India, China etc. where they repeat the smog issues you had in LA 40 years ago ...
The plastic garbage in the seas is not only an asian issue. It is an issue of the countries producing it.
CO2 production, still using oil etc. is a global issue.
Burning the worst thinkable oil in ships is a global issue.
Climate change may be a long-term problem,
Define long term? One Generation? Two generations? 100 years, longer?
Sorry, you have no idea what you are funky talking about. The clima
Re: OK great (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess that's why they're building even more coal power plants every year, and continue to do so.
Yes and no. [npr.org] China is still the the biggest consumer of coal in the world. They are ramping down domestically while still investing in building internationally.
It's pretty easy though to have big advancements in solar power when you get to steal everyone else's ideas because it's mandated by law,
I remember when Slashdot was a bastion for open source advocates. Intellectual property is rent-seeking behavior and slows down technological progress. Maybe if we collaborated with the Chinese instead of competed with them?
and then you can undercut every single company that was producing them outside of China because the state government is picking up the slack.
The US is free to subsidize solar power if they so choose. This administration certainly didn't pursue that energy policy. That
Re: OK great (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the 'everyone else is a bad actor, so I refuse to do anything' argument. This is a terrible take and you know it.
No, we can't control what China and India do, but they're slowly doing their part. Saying that you're not going to do anything about the problem is a sign of YOUR moral failing, not theirs. Having morals and principles matters most at times like these. When you see other people taking the easy way out and you decide to do the right thing anyway.
I'm not asking you to solve the climate crisis on your own. In fact, I think the neoliberal garbage that tells us that as individuals, we can make a huge difference is bullshit—not using straws anymore isn't going to save anything, but it's sure a convenient scapegoat (still, don't use them if you don't need them)—and only action at the government and international level is going to be worth a damn. But vote and protest and make a noise so that you can change the things that matter in the way that you can.
Re: (Score:2)
The "top scientists" remark in the summary reminded me of the end of Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark..
"Where's the Ark?!"
"Don't worry Dr. Jones.. we have top men working on it right now."
"Who?"
"Top. Men. "
Re: (Score:2)
Good taste in movies.
Re: ZOMG (Score:2)
Greta is wanting your money now? That is a new one from the nutbar bin.
Do tell more of your stories mr lover of pollution!
Re: The Internet has been utterly crippled. (Score:2, Informative)
Dude, your mental health issues make Greta Thunberg look completely sane and balanced in comparison.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But what if they are wrong?
But what if they are right? Last year's wildfires in California, 2017 wildfires in British Columbia (which half ruined my vacation there), this year's wildfires in Brasil and now Australia - we are already feeling significant impacts of climate change. And yes, it will get worse. For most people in modern, developed countries this is the classical frog slowly being heated up...but some even in that situation now get to feel the impacts directly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's on them to prove they are right.
Science never strictly proves anything. Tomorrow, the Xhotanian scientist running this universe simulation may decide to change a few parameters, and suddenly eating a diet of pure roasted pork belly with peanut-butter frosting will be healthy. Science only gives us better and better models of reality. Our best current models predict a devastating effect of climate change. You can ignore them, but then, you can also ignore Newton and Einstein, and step off a cliff because gravity is not "proven".
idiotic policies of socialists
If you actu
Re: (Score:2)
They mass produce garbage with their lifestyle more prodigiously than the people they call climate deniers.
Yeah sure. I hate urban progessives too and wouldn't you know they're scum and secretly ugly too! Unless you have actual evidence for that its nothing more than an anecdote spiced with a masssive amount of selection bias.
Re: (Score:3)
They mass produce garbage with their lifestyle more prodigiously than the people they call climate deniers. Eat out all the time
What about eating out do you imagine makes it cost more? A well-utilized restaurant is more efficient than cooking at home! They cook things in bigger batches, they buy food in larger packages and produce tends to come in cardboard boxes without plastic bags (except cauliflower, which seems to be in plastic and in bags most of the time, wtf) which means less packaging waste, walk-in coolers are better insulated than your fridge, and when they use ovens they tend to stay hot through continued utilization ins
Re: (Score:2)
Even movie streaming is worse for the environment than just owning a Blu Ray player
That does not sound plausible, it wold require me to buy about 5 blue rays a day, or more. How should that be more environmental conserving - the costs not even mentioned.
Re:Slashdot obsession with climate apocalypse: Why (Score:5, Informative)
Why does Slashdot have an obsession with climate apocalypse stories? "WOLF!!!"
Because scientific speculation falls under the umbrella of Slashdot's slogan, "News for nerds, stuff that matters."
People have been screwing the planet's climate, geology and ecosystems for thousands of years. Only now, it's gotten far worse, and the cumulative effect is making some scientists, whose salaries don't depend on not understanding the problem, very worried. Their learned best guess is that we've reached a tipping point. We and other living things, might just go extinct. No promises.
--
"Hell is truth seen too late." -Thomas Hobbes
Re: In other news (Score:2)
As trollish as this is, highlighting an inevitably practical bit of hypocrisy, it also connects to the more significant issue of conflict of interest. Climate scientists have been elevated in stature, and there is a real risk that this affects them.
Re: (Score:2)
What she repeated (she didn't make it up) was that if we didn't fix things within 12 years, we would pass a tipping point that we could not recover from.
It would help if you understood the argument before complaining about it.