Wild Swings in Extreme Weather Are Rising (wired.com) 268
As the world warms, scientists say that abrupt shifts in weather patterns, like droughts followed by severe floods, are intensifying. From a report: From 2011 to 2016, California experienced five years of extreme drought, during which numerous high temperature records were broken. These hot, dry years were followed by the extremely wet winter of 2016-2017, when, from October to March, an average of 31 inches of rain fell across the state, the second highest winter rainfall on record. All that rain meant a bumper crop of grasses and other vegetation, which, as hot and dry conditions returned, likely contributed to a combustible mix of fuels that played a role in the severe fires that have swept California in the past two years. These wild swings from one weather extreme to another are symptomatic of a phenomenon, variously known as "climate whiplash" or "weather whiplash," that scientists say is likely to increase as the world warms.
The intensity of wildfires these days in places like California are a symptom of climate change, experts say, but the whiplash effect poses a different set of problems for humans and natural systems. Researchers project that by the end of this century, the frequency of these abrupt transitions between wet and dry will increase by 25 percent in Northern California and as much as double in Southern California if greenhouse gasses continue to increase. "There has been an assumption that the main thing we have to contend with climate change is increased temperatures, decreased snowpack, increased wildfire risk" on the West Coast, said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Those things are still true, but there is this other dimension we will have to contend with -- the increased risk of extreme flood and drought, and rapid transitions between the two."
The intensity of wildfires these days in places like California are a symptom of climate change, experts say, but the whiplash effect poses a different set of problems for humans and natural systems. Researchers project that by the end of this century, the frequency of these abrupt transitions between wet and dry will increase by 25 percent in Northern California and as much as double in Southern California if greenhouse gasses continue to increase. "There has been an assumption that the main thing we have to contend with climate change is increased temperatures, decreased snowpack, increased wildfire risk" on the West Coast, said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Those things are still true, but there is this other dimension we will have to contend with -- the increased risk of extreme flood and drought, and rapid transitions between the two."
Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So it should on a site which is ostensibly for nerds.
Sadly this is slashdot
Re: (Score:3)
Sadder still, as partisan as the debate seems to devolve to here, it's more rational and fact-oriented than forums on Reddit and 4chan, and much more two-sided than cable news programs.
All sides of a position should be afforded the light, since it's ability to desiccate feces helps the whole room smell better.
they deserve light (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In general it's better to refute bad information than to try to censor it.
depends on context (Score:2)
Re:depends on context (Score:4, Insightful)
The difficult is that the "climate change isn't real, or maybe it's real but not caused by humans, in any case, the scientists are frauds and hoaxers" opinion is that it isn't an actual alternate opinion. This is the product of a well funded campaign to spread uncertainty and doubt in order to protect the profits of companies that profit from fossil fuels.
It's not relevant that "You can learn quite a bit by debunking ideas like that" because while the people spreading this may be sincere, the origin of the garbage is not: they don't care, they only want to foster confusion, and they are quite willing to spread that uncertainty to people who don't particularly want to "learn quite a bit."
Re: Here we go again (Score:3)
All sides of a position should be afforded the light
There are no "sides" here, in that there's no actual legitimate debate but rather the cultivated appearance of one, which isn't remotely the same thing.
No one discusses or debates any more (Score:3, Insightful)
This ought to be a thoughtful, civil discussion.
There are real, identifiable flaws in the climate change position, but no one seems to want to step forward and address them directly.
Climate change is now a political position, and it's literally impossible to get a real discussion on slashdot about anything political. It *always* devolves into name calling and downvoting - largely from one side.
Debate used to be a high form of art, where one side couldn't use trivial gainsaying or logical fallacies to make their case. *Those* are the things that should be
Re: (Score:2)
"Is climate change real? No one knows, because one side keeps acting out like a bunch of children.
yes, we do know, for a demonstrable fact. YOU are the problem because YOU keep spreading the idea that no on knows.
Which is a science denier position regarding climate change..
WE can literally prove it exist in any college science class. We can create falsifiable tests, as can any corporation.
"Not so with climate change, it's all "the science is settled" and "no more time for debate","
The science showing it is
Re: (Score:2)
This ought to be a thoughtful, civil discussion.
There are real, identifiable flaws in the climate change position, but no one seems to want to step forward and address them directly.
Except, of course, for the scientists themselves who give extensive error bounds and discussions of what is known, and how well we know it.
Climate change is now a political position, and it's literally impossible to get a real discussion on slashdot about anything political. It *always* devolves into name calling and downvoting - largely from one side.
True. And that side is the one that can be easily identified by their calling scientists either idiots or a conspiracy of frauds, without ever actually showing any knowledge of climate science.
...Is climate change real? No one knows, because one side keeps acting out like a bunch of children.
No one... other than the scientists and the people who actually pay attention to the scientists.
And nerds also don't seem to have a sense of history. Looking back we see the "smoking causes cancer" issue is an analogue to climate change, being a truth inconvenient to large companies. The tobacco companies fought tooth and nail over that one, but scientists calmly persisted for 40 years until everyone was convinced that it was correct
Bingo! This time it's the companies that profit from fossil fuels who are funding
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you assume that we will not replace fossil fuels with other sources of energy.
Citation needed. If anything, it seems that a realization of the need to address climate change has become more mainstream since the early 90s.
Again, citation needed, you give no evidence that these two groups are the same, even if there
Re: (Score:2)
" Giving up fossil fuels will make us cold, hungry and poor."
Interesting since I don't burn fossil fuel for energy.
I am not cold, hungry or poor.
"Secondly, the climate change agenda was hijacked in the 90s by the extreme left. "
No, in the nighties, the extreme right hijacked it and change the discussion among the GOP from the best way to move forward, to it doesn't exist. Then painted anyone who said it did as extremist.
" This pits anyone who rightly observes that government and socialism have never fixed a
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Quiet you. Pointing out that cities are allowing housing and businesses to be built in flood plains, and flood zones is an inconvenient truth. Just like all those floods here in Canada the last few years, where the cities opened up to build in them. The once in 100 becoming 20 year events also has some really shitty things tied to it, like the march of environmentalists demanding flood control dams to be removed. One of the dams on the Thames River(Gordon Pittock Dam) here in Ontario, the environuts are
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
cities are allowing housing and businesses to be built in flood plains, and flood zones
Climate change deniers are largely responsible for ensuring that municipalities ignore the changing threats imposed by global warming. For example, in North Carolina they encouraged legislation that banned the state from basing coastal policies on the latest scientific predictions [go.com] on sea level rise.
The net result is that the state swoops in and socializes the costs of damages.
Re: (Score:2)
The ban was on predictions more than 30 years out. There are no reliable predictions that far out, and most structures aren't designed with lifespans that long anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change deniers are largely responsible for ensuring that municipalities ignore the changing threats imposed by global warming.
Why was it the environmentalists that went out of their way to try and stop sea wall, and low basin draining in Florida for example. But let's look at the article in question, I didn't know democrats were "climate change deniers" for example...which is the basis in question of those actions. Hmm...as they say. The rest of the article kinda devolves from there, not really offering anything in the way of 'science' to prove that their premise is correct. Rounding it out, and looking over the last 7 years..
Re: (Score:2)
Increased flooding that affects people has much more to do with building impermeable structures over large areas of what previously provided natural drainage and retention than either climate change or dam removal. In fact, flood control dams and levees have many times contributed to the problem, as they encourage construction in flood-prone
Re: (Score:2)
, like the march of environmentalists demanding flood control dams to be removed.
some environmentalist.
"everything down stream had mass flooding, and the flooding was so bad that bridges 8.5m(28ft) above normal river level were washed out repeatedly"
maybe they shouldn't have built there to being with?
Re: Here we go again (Score:2)
Look at the Hard Rock building collapse. I wonder if there is a rising industry of building with shoddy materials and techniques in these areas so then you can blame the flood for the damage, collect full insurance and rebuild.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it comes down to the notion that the folks responsible for the construction of buildings didn't live through hard times, so they don't have a scope of what could go wrong like their predecessors did.
I suspect we'll see more of this as the boomers leave the work place and take all that experience and caution with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Its worth noting the reason the government sells flood insurance and not private insurers is private insurers long ago deemed housing in flood zones to not be insurable since the losses were so high.
A government funded healthcare system is a bridge to far, but when rich people's water front property values are in trouble its time for us all to work together and share the load!
Re: (Score:2)
private insurers long ago deemed housing in flood zones to not be insurable since the losses were so high.
No they did no such thing. Rather government banned private flood insurance on the theory that the losses were likely to wipe out private insurers, which would mean they would fail to pay claimants.
Private insurance does not need the insurance of anything 'banned' they have actuaries that can tell them its not in their interest to write a policy on a building in flood plane unless said policy specifically excludes compensation related to loss from flooding. They do this by the way, private home owners ins
Re: (Score:2)
Private flood insurance is legal. It's usually not affordable in flood-prone areas and may not even be available.
Well, 20 years is not so bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This ought to be a thoughtful, civil discussion.
You are correct. When faced with rapid changes in chemistry (which this is) solutions can become unstable. We have been seeing some strange instabilities in recent years. Last year we had a relatively cool bot not all that cold winter here in the Northeast of US, while way up north it was much warmer. This past summer, we were very often hotter than the places we often visit in Florida.
At present, there is a Jet Stream huge dip and a sharp return north that is hammering the Midwest with winter weather, wh
Unsound basis (Score:2)
When faced with rapid changes in chemistry (which this is)
I like how you just throw bullshit up as if it is fact, without any evidence.
All of the "chemistry" is the same year to year. We are all very, very curious find out what "chemistry" you think is changing, why, and why you consider this change to be "rapid".
Your whole presumption is why rational debate on climate change has become impossible, because people have thrown real science out the window and are just operating on blind faith in specific asse
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, no. We are not adjusting to a new normal. The climate is in a severe state of flux and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. We are not facing "a new normal." We are simply at an intermediate stage towards something even more extreme.
Why is this only about California? (Score:5, Insightful)
A good percentage of my ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY [wa.gov.au] is on fire right now. We're going to have an entire thread full of republicans bashing democrats, but this is so much bigger than just the US, much less California.
And the tragedy is the same inane arguments will go on, back and forth, and the world will continue to burn with no action. It's so fucking tiresome.
Re:Why is this only about California? (Score:5, Funny)
A good percentage of my ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY [wa.gov.au] is on fire right now. We're going to have an entire thread full of republicans bashing democrats, but this is so much bigger than just the US, much less California.
And the tragedy is the same inane arguments will go on, back and forth, and the world will continue to burn with no action. It's so fucking tiresome.
Breathe slowly and calm down. Donald Trump, the most intelligent being in the universe, has determined that it's all a Chinese hoax, your country is not on fire, what looks like smoke and flames outside of your window is an elaborate illusion staged by liberal crisis actors.
Re: (Score:2)
A good percentage of my ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY [wa.gov.au] is on fire right now. We're going to have an entire thread full of republicans bashing democrats, but this is so much bigger than just the US, much less California.
And the tragedy is the same inane arguments will go on, back and forth, and the world will continue to burn with no action. It's so fucking tiresome.
Breathe slowly and calm down. Donald Trump, the most intelligent being in the universe, has determined that it's all a Chinese hoax, your country is not on fire, what looks like smoke and flames outside of your window is an elaborate illusion staged by liberal crisis actors.
No, they just needed to do a better job raking the floor like Finland does.
Re:Why is this only about California? (Score:4, Funny)
A good percentage of my ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY [wa.gov.au] is on fire right now. We're going to have an entire thread full of republicans bashing democrats, but this is so much bigger than just the US, much less California.
And the tragedy is the same inane arguments will go on, back and forth, and the world will continue to burn with no action. It's so fucking tiresome.
Breathe slowly and calm down. Donald Trump, the most intelligent being in the universe, has determined that it's all a Chinese hoax, your country is not on fire, what looks like smoke and flames outside of your window is an elaborate illusion staged by liberal crisis actors.
No, they just needed to do a better job raking the floor like Finland does.
Oh, the Finns have graduated to more effective methods. The Finnish government launched a Roomba breeding and release project. Now wild Roombas abound in Finnish forest vacuuming up the flammable organic matter from the forest floor: https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:3)
A good percentage of my ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY [wa.gov.au] is on fire right now. We're going to have an entire thread full of republicans bashing democrats, but this is so much bigger than just the US, much less California.
And the tragedy is the same inane arguments will go on, back and forth, and the world will continue to burn with no action. It's so fucking tiresome.
Breathe slowly and calm down. Donald Trump, the most intelligent being in the universe, has determined that it's all a Chinese hoax, your country is not on fire, what looks like smoke and flames outside of your window is an elaborate illusion staged by liberal crisis actors.
No, they just needed to do a better job raking the floor like Finland does.
Oh, the Finns have graduated to more effective methods. The Finnish government launched a Roomba breeding and release project. Now wild Roombas abound in Finnish forest vacuuming up the flammable organic matter from the forest floor:
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/... [reddit.com]
That's great news. I wish we would do the same thing here in the US. I would love to return to the majestic sight of herds of wild Bissels running across the open plains again like in the 1800s before they were hunted into virtual extinction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
FFS. OK you know how much burnt land we are talking? 5.5 M hectares as of today. To keep in in your realm of southern germany, the german state of bavaria (the largest) is 7M hectares. These fires are most likely to exceed that area by the time there is predictions of rain in late January. Raking FFS.
And climate is the issue. The fuel load is controlled by controlled burns during the spying and sometimes autumn.When things are cooler. The extreme weather over the last few years have contracted the period wh
Re: (Score:2)
And there I thought "(beware of sarcasm)" was sufficiently signifying the sarcastic part. Or do you really believe that we seriously rake forests? That anyone seriously rakes forests anywhere? We live in a world where some people believe the earth is flat, so yeah, if some folks have a leader that sas the Finns rake their forests to prevent fires, the same group will believe it.
Must be hella big rakes y'all are using to remove the deadwood.
p>I have no doubt that climate plays a crucial role here. In general it has become hard to deny that the climate has changed and is changing here in central Europe. Anyone can check their thermometers and keep a record and notice that summers have gotten hotter and drier, or that storms have increased in intensity for example. Of course it does. The only thing that can invalidate the basic chemistry of the atmosphere and the energy retention effects of that chemistry is divine intervention.
So the mainstream denialist approach has shifted to claim that it's all just natural and that it has all happened before. Of course it conveniently has only happened before we started to keep climate records.
Greenhouse gas caused climate change has happened before, and while there weren't humans around to keep records, a lot can be learned by studying the geological evidence.
In the end, the earth will find a new normal. It might not be what we want it to be though
Re: (Score:2)
So the mainstream denialist approach has shifted to claim that it's all just natural and that it has all happened before. Of course it conveniently has only happened before we started to keep climate records.
What are you even talking about? In the US, we called it "The Dust Bowl." There is even video of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at the map you linked to. Interesting. But I have to ask -- there's one fire in the northeast of the map, in the Bismark Sea, that looks like it is burning ocean. I zoomed in as tight as the map would let me go... no land. Is that a ship on fire? What gives?
I think you just found Skull Island
Re: (Score:2)
Åndalsnes just had a temperature record of 18.6 degrees C for January.
https://twitter.com/Meteorolog... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A good percentage of my ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY [wa.gov.au] is on fire right now. We're going to have an entire thread full of republicans bashing democrats, but this is so much bigger than just the US, much less California.
And the tragedy is the same inane arguments will go on, back and forth, and the world will continue to burn with no action. It's so fucking tiresome.
Well, since your wise people selected a good and capable leader that is doing his absolute best to deal with this catastrophe, things should not be so bad!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A good percentage of my ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY [wa.gov.au] is on fire right now.
That's NORMAL. You're living in an inhospitable place.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a deep breadth and calm down. The Arctic and Greenland melting is common. The oceans warming and acidifying are also common.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, to be fair, it should have been "republicans basing democrats bashing republicans". It's you classic shit sandwich versus turd burger argument. My bad.
Just hopping in (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just glad that the topic is getting more attention. A large minority of the sketches on this year's áramótaskaup (annual New Years parody show watched by most of Iceland) for example were on climate change. Here's three [youtube.com] (w/subtitles) - "How Dare You?" (Greta Thunberg as a horror movie) / "Our House is Burning" (children trying to convince their parents to get out of bed when their house catches fire) / "Next" (increasingly dire upcoming episodes on RÚV). Here's another [youtube.com], a solid parenting
Re: Just hopping in (Score:2, Informative)
You posted at 0430 us central time. A few hours before they roll their unemployed asses out of their beds at 0930 in the Bible Belt and open Slashdot to start a long day of propagating bullshit.
Re: Just hopping in (Score:2)
Or sorry, 0630
Re: (Score:2)
You posted at 0430 us central time. A few hours before they roll their unemployed asses out of their beds at 0930 in the Bible Belt and open Slashdot to start a long day of propagating bullshit.
You people have weird fantasies.
Your strongest political base is inner city unemployed.
it is? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People in the bible belt aren't journalists. And journalists live in big cities for the most part, they're also the only ones in the booming US economy to be losing their jobs at a record pace.
Re: (Score:3)
Climate change is a lie and bush fires in Australia is totally normal... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You just linked to a page that cites multiple sources saying that climate change is having an effect on bush fires in Australia. It even mentions "the ongoing 2019-20 bushfires [wikipedia.org] which are the most destructive and the most widespread in Australia's recorded history".
So what you said is an absolute lie. What is happening in Australia right now is definitely not totally normal.
Climate is changing (Score:2)
So we need to be working on how to adapt.
Re: (Score:2)
So we need to be working on how to adapt.
Should we encourage the growth of webbed hands and feet, maybe gills, or increase our asbestos intake?
Re: Climate is changing (Score:2)
I have more faith in tech. Nice glib response though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're also the 16th population-densest country on Earth - 17,3 million people in a country less than 30% larger than the US state of Maryland. Exactly how much are you willing to pay per capita in less densely populated areas?
Note that the Netherlands eventually retreating [www.vn.nl] against the onslaught of rising sea levels and greater flood heights is a possibility in the cards over the next century. They face the same "increasingly impractical" challenges of living in an ever-deeper hole relative to the surroun
Re: (Score:2)
They're also the 16th population-densest country on Earth - 17,3 million people in a country less than 30% larger than the US state of Maryland. Exactly how much are you willing to pay per capita in less densely populated areas?
Thus their costs are incredibly poor in return! Building a dike to protect 17 million people, in a tiny area, has a MUCH higher per-person cost than building the same dike to protect a lot more land AND protect more people. If it's affordable for the Dutch, it should be fine elsewhere.
Bigger question, though - how much sea-rise will we actually see? Because, at least in the most populous city in the US, sea level rise has been a constant 3mm/year for the last 170 years [noaa.gov]. I'm pretty sure we can figure out
Re: (Score:2)
More density = less distance per dike per person. Pretty much linearly.
Is your view that there's a greater-than-inverse linear relationship between dike cost per unit distance and population, to overcome this? Why? Dikes are built on swamps / floodplains / ocean being reclai
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Climate is changing (Score:5, Insightful)
Or we could work on ways to stop changing it quite so quickly and radically, but that's apparently too complicated for some folks to grasp.
Makes me think of the joke about the fellow who visits the doctor, complaining, "It hurts when I do *this*," and doesn't want to believe Doc's response to the effect that he should simply stop doing *that*.
Re: Climate is changing (Score:2)
You go ahead and tell the second and third world that are still coming online how to do it. Try living in reality where you do both.
Re: (Score:3)
The term "lead by example" comes to mind, but I guess we're too busy developing drones to deliver Aunty Katherine's cat meme mugs in 24 hours and installing exploitable "security" cameras into our homes to focus on pesky things like carbon sequestration, cleaner energy sources, and either a good way to replace, or recycle, plastics.
Yes, the second and third world are going to be belching their shit out everywhere, but it's hard to offer an alternative when the first world hasn't even gotten their shit toget
Re: (Score:3)
Or we could work on ways to stop changing it quite so quickly and radically, but that's apparently too complicated for some folks to grasp.
We could - we could work on ways to sequester carbon, and we could go full nuclear - but that doesn't feel nearly as good as name calling and moral posturing.
Re: Climate is changing (Score:2)
The ocean is doing a good job of sequestering carbon dioxide. I'm not advocating one or the other. I'm saying react to the change, you don't have to stop moving to renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
When it starts affec
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest that we focus, as a species, on evolving fireproof skin and smoke-resistant lungs.
A swim bladder might be nice as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you're deluded (Score:2)
Re: Climate is changing (Score:2)
Cram your political bent. Logically you react to the change is what I'm advocating. You adapt. You're trying to hard.
Unfalsifiable (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there even a metric for "wild swings" that can be applied historically? Can it really be aggregated to different areas?
California has not had "wild swings" in the weather, despite the summary claims. Years of drought is actually steady weather, not "swings". And when it ended, no extreme floods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My father pointed out an interesting fact to me in the 80's. When watching the weather on the evening news, they'd always have the records high and lows for that day. He noticed that the two always seemed to be within a five year time span.
Then I guess we'd better get hot (Score:2)
Then I guess we'd better get hot (pun intended), go full nuclear and figure out how to sequester carbon at scale.
Or we could preen and hector. I guess that's more fun.
No difference between now and fifty years ago (Score:2)
No choice of collective (Score:2)
Unlike most things in life where you can choose to be with one collective over other, it's unfortunate that with this issue that people who consider climate change non-addressable can't choose to stay on one planet, and those who consider it addressable on another.
Re:gone with the wind (and water) (Score:5, Insightful)
Frequency is a thing too, dumb ass. Just how much longer can folks keep effectively claiming the laws of physics don't apply to earth?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh? During the last two decades there were several hottest summers, winters, springs and autumns on record in a row. This is not possible in a calming climate since record highs are, well, record highs. The higher they are, the more uncommon they ought to be. Record highs in a row are only possible if the trend goes upward.
Re: (Score:2)
There is still that thing about coming out of an ice-age.
Re: (Score:2)
This. I can't see how most people can totally deny the climate is changing. But it likely is attributed to cyclical changes such as this. Yeah, coming out of an Ice Age might explain what we are seeing. Prior to the most recent Ice Age, scientists believe that we didn't even have polar ice caps at all.
I'm sure the human race isn't helping things in the big picture. But even if we were still a bunch of Neanderthals without cars, factories, Aqua Net hair spray, evil suntan lotions, etc. the Earth would still
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Every single time I ask one of these climate nuts what temperature the Earth is supposed to be they start foaming at the mouth in rage. It's such a simple question. How can you have a discussion about Climate if you don't know what temperature it's supposed to be?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because it is such a nonsensical question. Another simple question is what colour of the sky clouds prefer, perhaps you can answer such a simple question.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the point. The one side is saying "Global warming is bad"; by asking what the Earth's temp is supposed to be, amiga3d is asking how they know that the present climate isn't too cold.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no temperature that the Earth is supposed to be, it just is.
A better question would be what temperature is preferred by existing life and in particular humanity along with humanity's civilization where the best answer may be steady as we've evolved for these conditions and our civilization is optimized for these same conditions.
The fires in Australia and recently in the far north do point to things being too hot rather then too cold.
Re: (Score:2)
To ask such a question [grist.org] is to play God.
The real danger is not the temperature itself but how fast it's changing. Today's climate change is mass extinction fast, and it's being caused by us and not an asteroid this time. We can do better to limit our impact on the planet. We need to do better if we want our children and grandchildren to have at least the same quality of life as we do today. Isn't that what every good parent wants?
Dumb Question (Score:3)
That's probably because that's a genuinely stupid question, I know I get frustrated when some one says something so ignorant with the smug firmness that comes with thinking they're being massively enlightened.
Of course there is no temperature the earth is "supposed to be".
A rapid change in global temperature does however create some huge problems. To name a couple of obvious ones, plants and animals simply can't adapt as quickly as the temperature is changing which will likely result in massive die offs. Fu
lol, "facts" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The entire climate change movement assumes that change is bad.
That is not true. Go look at the IPCC reports and you will find the effects of climate change listed - both positive and negative. When the idea of global warming came about, it was initially speculated that it would be a good thing. More research was done, and it was understood that while there would be some benefits, the positive effects are hugely outweighed by the negative effects.
Re: Net good or bad? (Score:2)
Very smart post. Loved that you brought up a garden, the most likely outcome is that AGW will cause mass damage, mass deaths, and the people who survive will be left engineering their world, maintaining and designing all life forms as sort of global farm.
This world will have new rules. I think free market principles will make it with modifications, you need a market language expressive enough for all of nature. Reproduction is the currency of nature, we pay the wheat for the food it provides by planting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. More like nuclear anti-proliferation. One nation or a small cabal of nations needs to obtain and control the tools that determine the climate. Those nations out of their own self interests will need to deny those things (actively most likely) to others.
There will be those who make the rules and those who live with the consequences of those rules but are decidedly not given a choice in them. This is the way all history has pretty much gone since the days of Rome. Because guess what no transnation
Re: (Score:2)
Climate isn't weather
You did ok with your subject line. Then you fucked up.