A 3-degree Celsius World Has No Safe Place (economist.com) 229
The extremes of floods and fires are not going away, but adaptation can lessen their impact. Economist (paywalled): If temperatures rise by 3C above pre-industrial levels in the coming decades -- as they might even if everyone manages to honour today's firm pledges -- large parts of the tropics risk becoming too hot for outdoor work. Coral reefs and the livelihoods that depend on them will vanish and the Amazon rainforest will become a ghost of itself. Severe harvest failures will be commonplace. Ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland will shrink past the point of no return, promising sea rises measured not in millimetres, as today's are, but in metres.
Six years ago, in Paris, the countries of the world committed themselves to avoiding the worst of that nightmare by eliminating net greenhouse-gas emissions quickly enough to hold the temperature rise below 2C. Their progress towards that end remains woefully inadequate. Yet even if their efforts increased dramatically enough to meet the 2C goal, it would not stop forests from burning today; prairies would still dry out tomorrow, rivers break their banks and mountain glaciers disappear. Cutting emissions is thus not enough. The world also urgently needs to invest in adapting to the changing climate. The good news is that adaptation makes political sense. People can clearly see the need for it. When a country invests in flood defences it benefits its own citizens above all others -- there is no free-rider problem, as there could be for emissions reduction. Nor does all the money come from the public purse; companies and private individuals can see the need for adaptation and act on it. When they do not do so, insurance companies can open their eyes to the risks they are running.
Some adaptation is fairly easily set in place. Systems for warning Germans of coming floods will surely now improve. But other problems require much larger public investment, like that which has been put into water-management in the Netherlands. Rich countries can afford such things. Poor countries and poor people need help, which is why the Paris climate agreement calls for annual transfers of $100bn from rich to poor. The rich countries have not yet lived up to their side of this. On July 20th John Kerry, President Joe Biden's special envoy on climate change, reiterated America's pledge to triple its support to $1.5bn for adaptation in poorer countries by 2024, part of a broader move to increase investment in adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. More such efforts are vital.
Six years ago, in Paris, the countries of the world committed themselves to avoiding the worst of that nightmare by eliminating net greenhouse-gas emissions quickly enough to hold the temperature rise below 2C. Their progress towards that end remains woefully inadequate. Yet even if their efforts increased dramatically enough to meet the 2C goal, it would not stop forests from burning today; prairies would still dry out tomorrow, rivers break their banks and mountain glaciers disappear. Cutting emissions is thus not enough. The world also urgently needs to invest in adapting to the changing climate. The good news is that adaptation makes political sense. People can clearly see the need for it. When a country invests in flood defences it benefits its own citizens above all others -- there is no free-rider problem, as there could be for emissions reduction. Nor does all the money come from the public purse; companies and private individuals can see the need for adaptation and act on it. When they do not do so, insurance companies can open their eyes to the risks they are running.
Some adaptation is fairly easily set in place. Systems for warning Germans of coming floods will surely now improve. But other problems require much larger public investment, like that which has been put into water-management in the Netherlands. Rich countries can afford such things. Poor countries and poor people need help, which is why the Paris climate agreement calls for annual transfers of $100bn from rich to poor. The rich countries have not yet lived up to their side of this. On July 20th John Kerry, President Joe Biden's special envoy on climate change, reiterated America's pledge to triple its support to $1.5bn for adaptation in poorer countries by 2024, part of a broader move to increase investment in adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. More such efforts are vital.
Let's keep this simple... (Score:5, Informative)
...so everyone can understand it:
YEARS AGO, there was the "non-return point" where, if all the World agreed to stop polluting, we could stop the "global warming" (or whatever you choose to call it).
That "non-return point" came and went but the World decided to keep polluting. So, even if from night to day the whole world decided to stop all pollutants this "global warming" WILL NOT STOP.
What is this "global warming" for dummies: the Earth changes its climate SLOWLY to all the species have time to EVOLVE and ADAPT; but we humans, with our contamination, WE HAVE SPEED THAT PROCESS UP to a point no species whatsoever have enough time to adapt and survive.
The "climate shift" takes HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years, but we have sped that process to A LITTLE MORE THAN A CENTURY.
Now, this destructive force (which is a consequence of this sped climate shift) is to keep growing YES OR YES. The more we keep polluting, the more destructive it will. The less we pollute, the more similar to the last one will be.
Re: (Score:2)
People and, more notably, politicians, are lazy, selfish and short-sighted -- film at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Smaller, factory-built reactors could be changed out at the end of each unit lifetime, rather than having to decommission a whole plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for one new experimental plant, nuclear power requires water and has already been shut down or run at reduce generation levels during heat waves.
We have a 50 year track record of nuclear *never* being as cheap as advertised, nor as safe as advertised, nor as clean as advertised.
And republicans have held complete power multiple 4 year terms over the last 50 years. So don't even try that "it's the democrats" bullshit.
Re: Let's keep this simple... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
After nearly 50 years of Democrats denying the benefits of nuclear power. . . .
Blaming Democrats for 1 thing. Meanwhile, we have Republicans who deny that climate change is real and are doing NOTHING about it.
Re: Let's keep this simple... (Score:2)
That "China Syndrome" movie was very convincing - politicians and voters all thought it was what happened at Three Mile Island... spoiler alert, it wasn't but it was just too damn convincing.
I remember the craptastic job the news reporters did covering that 'crisis'.
Re: (Score:2)
wut?
Not possible you're that clueless, so obviously trolling. The Dems wanted (and still want to) fix the issue without nuclear. Which I disagree with - I think that nuclear is part of the solution for baseload power.
You're also refusing the acknowledge the other sides faults. So that's double evidence that you're not worth engaging with. I'm done. You can have the last word.
Re: (Score:2)
The Dems wanted (and still want to) fix the issue without nuclear.
Why? That's what I'm trying to figure out. What is so horrible about nuclear power that they had to hold up every attempt to build a radioactive waste disposal site. Why would they fail to fund a "megatons to megawatts" program? It was Democrats that signed the treat but when funds were needed to make it happen the plutonium didn't move. That gave the Russians permission to keep weapon grade plutonium, and ended the treaty.
You're also refusing the acknowledge the other sides faults.
Democrats had the filibuster. They let the Republicans have more natural gas dr
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I see. I get moderated down for speaking ill of the Democrat party. Thou shall not besmirch the Democrat part on Slashdot! Is that about right? What a bunch of partisan hacks on this site. Democrats are the Meatloaf party, they will do anything for global warming... but they won't do THAT!
If the Democrats can't allow nuclear power for fighting CAGW, while being told for decades that there's a place for the waste, nuclear power is the safest energy source in the USA, likely the lowest CO2 emitter th
Re: Let's keep this simple... (Score:2, Troll)
Re: Let's keep this simple... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that people don't give a shit now. We have stories every day about the woes of climate change, which is obviously undeniable, with every year warmer than the last. However, with scientists repeatedly saying that we are past the tipping point, coupled with the fact that the average Joe can't do a damn thing to help, because there is literally a busload of people in the world that have the resources to do something about it, but nobody else can.
So, because of this, people have completely lost hop
Re: Let's keep this simple... (Score:2)
Yes, everytime the weather changes, everytime an unmanaged forest burns, everytime people are uncomfortable outside (too hot, too cold, too much rain, not enough rain) it's proof positive that the planet is going to destroy itself (freeze or burn up - take your pick).
Re:Let's keep this simple... (Score:5, Interesting)
Things that you (and, yes, this goes for me too) can do to reduce the destruction of this climate change:
1. Work from home.
2. Bike, walk, or use public transportation.
3. Don't fly.
4. Go vegetarian or vegan (factory farms are horrible polluters)
5. Don't have kids (and don't worry about dooming the species, we are badly overpopulated as it is)
6. Live in a small apartment instead of a big house.
I am not saying any of this is easy or even reasonable. I am just saying that these are major environmental impacts that ordinary civilians have on the world, and they are something that can be changed.
Re:Let's keep this simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a better list:
1. Hydroelectric dams.
2, Geothermal power plants.
3. Onshore windmills.
4. Nuclear fission power plants.
5. Synthesized hydrocarbons using energy from the energy sources listed above.
6. Not necessarily a climate change mitigation strategy but we need desalination of seawater.
7. Mitigation of changing climate with seawalls, changes in crops, dams (also see #1), planned migration out of troubled areas, and prevention of migration into troubled areas..
8. Relax, we got this.
Re:Let's keep this simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a better list:
1. Hydroelectric dams.
With sea levels rising by metres, the number of places where this will work in the long term is diminishing. Plus making the concrete for such dams, and building them, releases a shitload of greenhouse gases.
2. Geothermal power plants.
Total world electricity consumption is about 22,000 TWh per year. Geothermal energy production for the world is less than 68,000 GWh per year. So increasing geothermal by a factor of 10 still only gets us to 3% of current needs.
3. Onshore windmills.
That's better - it's already at more than 5% of current annual needs. But the production and installation of windmills is hugely greenhouse-gas intensive, and a lot of that energy is used in mining and heavy industry where substituting electricity for fossil fuel is not currently viable and not likely to be viable for decades. And with changing weather patterns, we might build wind farms in places that end up not having enough wind to be worthwhile in a decade.
4. Nuclear fission power plants.
Agreed. But it's a stopgap, until we develop cleaner nuclear or find truly safe long-term storage for the vastly increased radioactive waste.
5. Synthesized hydrocarbons using energy from the energy sources listed above.
Say what? Whether the hydrocarbons come from the ground, are synthesized, or are extracted from magic fairy farts, they still contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. Unless you're talking about capturing carbon from the atmosphere to make them; that could work, but right now it's a pipe dream that's only somewhat more likely than fusion power to be a viable option.
6. Not necessarily a climate change mitigation strategy but we need desalination of seawater.
Irrelevant in this discussion, as you noted.
7. Mitigation of changing climate with seawalls, changes in crops, dams (also see #1), planned migration out of troubled areas, and prevention of migration into troubled areas.
It's kinda cute that you think the "migration" of millions of desperate environmental refugees can be "planned" - or it would be cute, if not for the tremendous bloodshed that will inevitably result from refugee and immigration crises that will utterly dwarf anything we've ever experienced.
8. Relax, we got this.
No, we fucking well don't. Furthermore, it's blithe and facile thinking like yours that has gotten us to the point where humanity is running headlong towards the edge of a cliff with no bottom in sight below it. Wake up fool.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Let's keep this simple... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's ironic how you are offering plenty of lifestyle solutions that demand a certain amount of sacrifice in order to ensure a better future. But one of your solutions is to not have children, which not only goes against everything the human body, and life in general, works towards, but it invalidates the rest of your solutions as there is no reason to go through all this trouble if am not gonna leave anything anyway.
And no, "leaving the planet a better place for others" is about as good of a reason as "don't be selfish, bro". We wouldn't be in this mess if things were that easy.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing ironic about it. The reasoning here is very simple: having kids has a very high carbon footprint. Abstaining from having kids will, therefore, reduce pollution levels and therefore reduce the carbon emissions. In putting this in my list, I was just making an objective assessment of the facts, not imposing any kind of moral demands on anyone.
If you don't want to reduce pollution levels, then don't do anything on this list. If you are only motivated to do things that might make your own l
Re: Let's keep this simple... (Score:2)
If two people create two or fewer people to make their family, population growth will slow, and possibly wind back down.
Of course, that will really put the hurt on future generations as they struggle to provide the social services safety net we've come to expect from them.
Re: Let's keep this simple... (Score:2)
For most of your list, time freeing up resources just means a climate-change denier will claim those resources. My actions make no difference without enforceable mandates that everyone change lifestyle. That pushes most of your list back into the government level list.
Re: (Score:3)
While in theory I agree, and these do make sense, the real issue is industry. I date journalist who covers climate policy and I can tell you: Industry LOVES to see us bicker and whine and wring our hands about personal choices and the environment, because they already know that it doesn't do any good for people to change, but does keep them anxious.
The only real way for this to get fixed is severe government action via strict policy. It will sunder the hell out of the stock market, which is why no one wants
A paradox (Score:2)
Don't have kids (and don't worry about dooming the species, we are badly overpopulated as it is)
I'm not convinced. If nobody smart enough to understand global warming, environmental impact and overpopulation has kids what do you think the next generation of humans is going to do to the planet?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't release 100's of millions of tons of CO2 on a 10 minute trip to space just for fun
I think you need to learn about orders of magnitude.
Re: Let's keep this simple... (Score:2)
Don't release 100's of millions of tons of CO2 on a 10 minute trip to space just for fun
How in the hell does a space craft generate "100's of millions of tons of CO2"?
Since I believe that I can neither create nor destroy matter, to output 100 million tons of CO2 should require "100's of millions of tons" of rocket fuel - a logical impossibility - I can't imagine a launch pad that can support even 100 million tons of rocket fuel...
Let's keep this real (Score:3)
The "climate shift" takes HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years, but we have sped that process to A LITTLE MORE THAN A CENTURY.
Human-caused climate change is about 10 times faster than the fastest periods of natural climate change in the last 65 million years, not 1,000 times as you state. There was a study from Stanford a few years ago discussing this but simply knowing that the last ice age ended about 11,000 years ago already shows you are one order of magnitude out.
Can we please try to stick to facts when trying to persuade climate change deniers? You are not going to convince anyone if they know that some of what you say i
Re: (Score:2)
There problem is this: I'm not English native, and I was trying to use the "hundreds" Americans uses normally instead of thousand (1,200 are "12 hundreds" instead of "one thousand two hundreds".
I realized I didn't fix this problem just when I was clicking on "send" and because there's no "edit" button... it had to go that way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that the climate has changed BOTH more (there is no doubt it's both been warmer, and colder, for extended spans of time) and faster (after say the Chicxulub impact, for example) than what you're talking about.
And in every previous case, it's oscillated but eventually returned to an overall norm.
We are the most adaptable creatures that have ever crawled across the surface of the planet.
We'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
You say creatures can not adapt to an average change of 3C, but coincidentally there is at least one mammal, called Homo Sapiens, which can live in central Africa or Greenland and Alaska, with the former area having a yearly average temperature of -3.8C, and the latter a yearly average temperature of 25.5C. That's a difference of nearly 30C, and in both regions also other animals live adapted to their environment.
That creatures and plants will not be able to adapt (yes, also by migration) to the change is p
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? I bet if you're from a hot country if you go to live to a cold country (or vice versa), you will have a very bad time adapting.
Now, think of the rest of the Earth, not just YOU. As you have said there's only one creature... are you going to turn cannibal to survive?
I mean, all the flora and fauna haven't had time to adapt and is DEAD.
What will happen when you end your "human meat" reserves? Are you going to eat yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you can use the word "bullshit" and relate to a single example of the whole geological history trying to pass it a the "normal".
BTW, FYI, you didn't even read the title before writing your answer (which is the real "bullshit" in here). I copy here it for you: "Let's keep this simple..."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Capital letters use fewer bits than lowercase.
USE ALL CAPS TO SAVE THE PLANET! BRING BACK 6 BIT CHARACTER SETS!
(One economic advantage that the 6 bit byte 24 bit word ICT 1900 series computers had over their 8 bit byte 32 bit word IBM 360 competition was that memory was 3/4 the price. Really).
Slashdot is helping out by it's dogged refusal to use unicode.
Turn off cryptocurrency (Score:5, Interesting)
It's immoral in terms of climate impact for us to allow crypto to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
While crypto is a huge waste, companies like Samsung and Apple that constantly push new hardware on the world have a larger impact. We don't really need 12 to 18 month hardware cycles.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The same argument could be made for hosting Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Your statement is factually correct, but; since western nations have managed to keep their populations well below half a billion citizens, isn't there some merit in that?
It's fairly well accepted that human overpopulation is a leading cause of climate change.
Get off her, Li. Watch some cable tonight, Ramesh.
.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only meaningful measure here is per capita, and then your statement about China is false.
lmfao, what? If there's an issue it's regardless of cash on hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Turn off cryptocurrency (Score:2)
China is still building coal-fired power plants, and will keep doing so for the forseeable future. The fact that they have a half billion people that live in homes without electrical outlets doesn't make them a 'clean' country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they don't care (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Take, for example our very own British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
It should have been obvious for decades, even to those of even the most minimal level of intelligence, that the world is overpopulated and I think I can say with little fear of contradiction that the more people there are, the more pollution they produce.
Now, take a look at the Boris Johnson Wikipedia entry. It says, "Children - at least 6" i.e. there might be even more. I have one. Everybody has the right to have a child but in an o
Re: they don't care (Score:2)
Your pissed because he has 6 children? Suck it up butter cup, lots of families have one or none, the world won't end because Boris Johnson has 6 kids!
Re: (Score:2)
If you're middle class in America it is (Score:2)
Also Texas (and a variety of other states) is making moves to make it harder for the sort of people hurt by climate change to vote. There's over 400 anti-voter bills in the works. If you disagree with them you won't be allowed to vote. At least not in numbers enough t
Re: If you're middle class in America it is (Score:4, Informative)
Oh stop, your voting rights argument makes no sense.
Please point out the 'drastic' impact the Georgia or Texas voting laws impose... in Texas, they eliminate 24 hour and drive-in voting - does your state have 24 voting? Drive thru voting? No - know how I know this, because in the entire country only one county had either in 2030, and never had it before. Non-issue.
And the Georgia bill - can't provide water to people in line to vote, require ID to vote absentee! Well, is it legal in your state for Trump campaign workers to hand out sandwiches, drinks, to people in line? No, it isn't. And that voter id requirement - did you know that simply writing down the last 4 digits of your social security number - just write it down - and you're good to go. Go ahead, tell me that you can't expect a grown man or woman to remember their social security number - you know, the one they need to open a bank account or file their taxes!
The Democrats just say there are 400 laws that change voting across America because they want to nationalize elections, period. My favorite part of their HR-1 'fir the people act"? The matching federal funds - every dollar a candidate raises, up to $200 per donor is matched 6:1 with federal tax dollars! Think about it - every $200 donation Trump gets in 2924 will magically turn into $1,200 in additional matching donation from the federal treasury. That sounds awesome, don't you think? Oh, and people that live outside your state will create the voting districts, we won't be able to purge dead people from the polls, we send live absentee ballots to every address on file, and another favorite of mine, you no longer need to vote in your own district - you can vote anywhere you want.
Your voting rights argument is simply wrong - have you actually read any of the 400 bills you discuss?
On the upside ... (Score:2)
If we can adapt, living on Venus becomes 3 degrees more tolerable ...
nothing real in the article (Score:4, Informative)
The article is paywalled, but I was able to get to it, it said nothing real
What really need is a realist documentary describing the actual impacts throughout the world in graphic detail. And how it will impact people.
As someone else said, it is probably too late, all that is left is how much we will fall, not if.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fear-monger article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get rid first of people that think that overpopulation is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The point being that if we insist on polluting at the rate which we insist on doing, we need to be much less people.
Correct, but the problem has two solutions. Fewer people or lower the rate of pollution. The latter is being stymied by political choices. In some countries (e.g. China) the former is actually being helped by political decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
China just raised kids limit from 2 to 3.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/c... [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The real problem... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Population isn't the problem. American, Australian, Canadian and European population is the problem.
High-tech populations are the solution, not the problem. These countries are where the solutions to carbon will come from. They have already solved their population problem.
Warming Causes Greening of Planet (Score:2, Informative)
Most of what's in the article is actually contrary to science. Increasing CO2 and temperatures will have a net affect of causing the planet to be greener because there is a lot more tundra than desert and because CO2 fertilizes plants. The primary harm of global warming is not "to the planet" because all CO2 in fossil fuels was once on the surface (fossils were alive), but to species (like the corals, polar bears, etc...) that will not be able to adapt to the change. During the dinosaur age the world was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The wold perspective may not be the right one: how do you move this nitrogen from the Netherlands to Africa while not polluting even more for the transport.
Instead, think about local solutions.
Re: Warming Causes Greening of Planet (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll listen to the consensus of climate scientists. If anything, their projections are turning out to be way too conservative.
Amazing how you contradicted yourself exactly one sentence after.
Re:Warming Causes Greening of Planet (Score:5, Insightful)
You choose to propagate your own myths instead to not have to change behaviour.
Amazon rainforest now releases more CO2 than it absorbs.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/1... [cnbc.com]
And tundra ground that unfreeze because of global warming releases much CO2 too and quickly a huge amount.
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
So, we're basically screwed? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is paywalled, but the summary seems to hint that we're already screwed. I guess that I should start throwing out all my recyclables and trade in my Prius for a big assed SUV.
If the world is turning into a desert hellhole 20 years from now anyway, why bother even trying to save it?
Oh, and while we're all preparing for armageddon, how about we all stop posting paywalled articles on Slashdot? I don't want to get wiped out in a solar storm because the warning page had a monthly subscription fee.
UE rules (Score:2)
Rich countries can afford such things
Indeed they could. But UE treaties still mandates that Euro zone member state deficits are kept below 3%, which means borrowing money (at negative rate for some states!) to finance climate change adaptation is difficult.
The world is not dying, it is being killed. (Score:2)
And those who kill it have names and addresses.
If you need to know those, look for managers, directors and officers of oil, gas and coal producers.
Paleoclimate (Score:4, Insightful)
As this graph points out, the last time the earth was 3 deg c hotter was 100000 years ago, when we were all in Africa. So the stupid article, and the stupid thread title, are just a load of old bollocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The available data shows humans migrating out of Africa 100ky ago. Maybe they were looking for a cooler place to live? Large areas were depopulated and stayed that way for long periods.
Total human population hovered around the 100k mark at that time, it's much easier for small, dispersed groups to survive climate extremes than a large population.
Also, 100ky ago there weren't 7 billion people alive with trillions of dollars worth of buildings and other assets in low coastal areas. Catastrophic flooding is ea
Re: (Score:3)
As this graph points out, the last time the earth was 3 deg c hotter was 100000 years ago, when we were all in Africa. So the stupid article, and the stupid thread title, are just a load of old bollocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So you'd agree that there weren't several billion people living and working all over the world on coastal areas liable to be flooded when the Earth warms back up. Excellent!
What puzzles me is that you also seem to be suggesting that you don't see any possible problems ("just a load of old bollocks") when the world warms back up. Odd!
Additionally, I wonder: how many people were living in Africa, roughly, at any one time, during the time frame you're referencing? Never mind I'll look it up. It's estimated [ourworldindata.org] tha
Exacerbates (Score:2)
The good news is that adaptation makes political sense. People can clearly see the need for it. When a country invests in flood defences it benefits its own citizens above all others
No, "When a country invests in flood defences it exacerbates the flooding everywhere else"
For example, if the seal level rises a meter, but we built a flood wall around the continental United States, all the water that would have covered the US instead contributes to the rising seas everywhere else.
People can clearly see the need for it. Ha! (Score:2)
The good news is that adaptation makes political sense
Well now we're really fjnorked.
People can clearly see the need for it
Don't count on it. The climate change deniers first said global warming didn't exist. Then once it became obvious that global warming wasn't a myth, the deniers said it's a natural phenomenon and humans had nothing to do with it. Once that delusion got punctured they said ok, but there's nothing we can do about it. What the deniers are worried about is the government spending money that they (the deniers) should be pocketing. So , no, not everyone will see the need for an
Don't care about poor people (Score:4, Insightful)
But most nations are unwilling to do this, as this would mean a change of their "cultural values" like religion or tribal allegiance.
South-Korea was completely devastated after the Korean War of the 1950's and had a poverty comparable to most African countries at that time. But they got their act together and are now one of the leading economies in the world. African nations, however, remain mired in corruption, nepotism and civil war. Every natural resource which could bring them wealth only ends up ruining their country through civil war and violence to grab a piece of the cake.
I believe we should let the poor people stew in their own misery and prevent any of them from coming here and abusing our hospitality. Many refugees who claimed to have been persecuted visit their homeland yearly as a tourist.
Re: (Score:3)
Quick Fix: Cease Manufacturing Goods in China (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bolsonaro is not so far very forest-friendly.
Re: The Amazon could use a break right about now (Score:2)
"We" aren't burning it, the natives are, because they need to feed their families. What is their alternative? Head up to the Town of Del Rio in Texas and ask for asylum?
Re: (Score:2)
People didn't choose top of hills to settle because it's not convenient to get water. Rain is too random.
Re: (Score:2)
Also worth mentioning that walking up and down a hill every day is kind of a pain.
Re: (Score:2)
People didn't choose top of hills to settle because it's not convenient to get water. Rain is too random.
You've never seen a Tuscan village, have you? Hilltops are easier to defend.
Re: (Score:2)
Not anymore in the missile/plane/drone era.
Re: (Score:2)
I live on the top floor.
Screw the people on the lower two floors! :)
Re: (Score:2)
A 3C temperature rise would certainly be life-changing in most places, but even that would have a few good points. The Middle East would now become too hot to support human life, and Florida would disappear completely. A Sandals Siberia honeymoon, anyone?
Re: A 3-degree Celsius world? (Score:2)
Re:A 3-degree Celsius world? (Score:4, Informative)
When the climate cooled down there wasn't enough water evaporating to fall down as rain over the Sahara and it became a desert.
What I'm basically saying is: climate change will lead to winners and losers. It's not as easy as saying we'll all lose.
We measure the sun's energy output (Score:5, Insightful)
It is actually pretty easy to understand! Climate warming alarmists never mention the obvious because it doesn't fit with their agenda; the Sun heats up the Earth and the Sun goes through cycles where it produces more or less heat.
And climate change deniers never mention the fact that we measure the solar output, we have been measuring the solar output continuously for decades, and that changes in solar output are not responsible for the observed temperature trends of the Earth.
Now, the Sun is about to go on cycle where it produces less heat so the Earth will cool down.
I've been listening to climate change deniers say this for decades. They never show any evidence for this-- there isn't any-- but they say it anyway.
But the climate has been warming.
According to climate alarmists, the Sun is not part of the equation and it's never mentioned anywhere in their "studies". They seem to believe that the Sun is a constant source of energy that never varies in output.
Don't be an idiot. Yes, of course scientists are aware that the sun is the input source for the Earth's thermal balance-- I can only assume you have never ractually ead any of the actual studies you refer to if you think otherwise. They don't say that the sun can't vary, what they say is we measure the solar output and it is not changing enough to account for the warming that we see.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been listening to climate change deniers say this for decades. They never show any evidence for this-- there isn't any-- but they say it anyway.
It was a reasonable hypothesis 20 years ago, but now seems unlikely with our better measurement.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we know the CO2 levels are rising, but you don't need a satellite to measure that, you could do that right here on Earth. What we need the satellites for is to measure where the CO2 is coming from, hot-spots if you will, so we can penalize nations which are not holding up to their obligations.
And maybe we can get more insights on how human population growth influences CO2 em
Re: We measure the sun's energy output (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical argument from the denialists. Take some fact out of context, magnify it, and then act like you have somehow performed an extraordinary feat of logic.
You argument is akin to: I put a grain of salt in my puree. It doesn't taste salty. Therefore adding salt to puree does not make it salty.
Very impressive, you could get a job as a muppet.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, the Sun is about to go on cycle where it produces less heat so the Earth will cool down.
The solar cycle is 11 years long. If you had any hope in being even remotely correct then the earth would have dramatically cooled in 2013-2016. It didn't, and you should feel stupid as a result.
Re: private companies can change $5-$10 watter bol (Score:2)
Because as the sea level rises, water will become more scarce/valuable?
Seriously?
You know, desalination is a thing, and since the planet is already (at that point) screwed, we could just turn on all coal-fired power plants and power massive desalination plants. As a bonus, we can transport the coal in giant barges directly from West Virginia to where ever it's needed!
Re: private companies can change $5-$10 watter bo (Score:2)