Without Action On Climate, Another Mass Extinction Event Will Likely Happen In the World's Oceans (smithsonianmag.com) 218
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Smithsonian Magazine: The sea changes are already happening. Earth's oceans are warmer than they were a century ago, sea levels are rising, and ocean waters are more acidic than they used to be, all because of human-created climate change. Global temperatures are expected rise even further in the coming decades, leaving researchers to wonder how these alterations will affect life on Earth -- and especially in the seas. But the oceans have been through major crises before -- including at least five mass extinctions -- and those events in the deep past can help outline what might happen in our near future. To better understand what trends to expect, Princeton University oceanographers Justin Penn and Curtis Deutsch applied a scientific model used to predict the extent of a past mass extinction to estimate the consequences of current global warming. Their research, published today in Science, warns that failing to reduce fossil fuel emissions will set Earth's oceans on track for a mass extinction within the next 300 years. This potential disaster will have uneven consequences across the seas. While the temperatures of both the global climate and the oceans are rising, the consequences will differ from place to place. How ocean life at the North and South poles respond will be different than species in the tropics.
Under the worst-case scenarios, the researchers found, extinctions in the oceans will likely mimic the die offs that have occurred during Earth's five mass extinctions as organisms struggle to find suitable habitat in warmer, likely oxygen-depleted waters. Ecosystems where oxygen levels in the water are already low, like in the tropical seas of the Indo-Pacific Ocean, are likely to be hit especially hard as seawater may lack the oxygen required to support the diverse creatures that live there. Polar seas, too, will likely see die offs as waters become too warm for cold-adapted species.
The study does have some limitations, [...] including that it does not consider other factors affecting ocean biodiversity such as overfishing and pollution. Researchers also need more information about the metabolic requirements of many different ocean organisms. Nevertheless, the study makes a solid case that many marine species can't simply move to another place and changes in ocean warmth will make it much more difficult for many species to survive. The long view is especially needed. [...] Looking centuries into the future, the new study emphasizes that now is the time to forestall some of these possible consequences for our oceans. The global climate is expected to get about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by 2100. If emissions can be curbed and warming kept around this minimum, then these mass extinction scenarios can be avoided. [...] The study outlines two possible scenarios. Continued and unmitigated fossil fuel emissions will eventually recreate conditions of some of Earth's worst biological crises. If emission trends can be reversed, however, there is greater hope for the future of the ocean's ecosystems and biodiversity.
Under the worst-case scenarios, the researchers found, extinctions in the oceans will likely mimic the die offs that have occurred during Earth's five mass extinctions as organisms struggle to find suitable habitat in warmer, likely oxygen-depleted waters. Ecosystems where oxygen levels in the water are already low, like in the tropical seas of the Indo-Pacific Ocean, are likely to be hit especially hard as seawater may lack the oxygen required to support the diverse creatures that live there. Polar seas, too, will likely see die offs as waters become too warm for cold-adapted species.
The study does have some limitations, [...] including that it does not consider other factors affecting ocean biodiversity such as overfishing and pollution. Researchers also need more information about the metabolic requirements of many different ocean organisms. Nevertheless, the study makes a solid case that many marine species can't simply move to another place and changes in ocean warmth will make it much more difficult for many species to survive. The long view is especially needed. [...] Looking centuries into the future, the new study emphasizes that now is the time to forestall some of these possible consequences for our oceans. The global climate is expected to get about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by 2100. If emissions can be curbed and warming kept around this minimum, then these mass extinction scenarios can be avoided. [...] The study outlines two possible scenarios. Continued and unmitigated fossil fuel emissions will eventually recreate conditions of some of Earth's worst biological crises. If emission trends can be reversed, however, there is greater hope for the future of the ocean's ecosystems and biodiversity.
Not only there (Score:5, Insightful)
But I think the "without action" part is becoming redundant. It is now amply clear that the human race as a whole is not going to do anything effective because it a) does not want to, b) things have worked fine so far and c) Climate change? What climate change?
Hence this should simply be written as "Another Mass Extinction Event Will Likely Happen In the World's Oceans" and be done with it. We are not going to stop anything. That boat has sailed 30 years ago when the oil-industry successfully conned the world into thinking climate change was not real and not going to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not only there (Score:5, Insightful)
The kids part is what bugs me the most. Any rational parent would raise absolute hell on anyone they thought where a threat to the wellbeing of their children. But because climate change seems a distance thing (hint: Its not, its happening right now) and the people responsibile so far removed from our lives, people are just shrugging it off.
But its a complete threat against our own kids. By rights people should be going apeshit about it. Flipping cop cars and marching on washington with pitchforks kinda stuff.
We as a species are *Terrible* at evaluating risk.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, by that limit, more like a 80 times or so, given that the sun will explode in roughly 5 billion years. Also plenty of time to regenerate those fossile fuels that are so instrumental in wiping ourselves out.
But since evolution seems to be mostly just select and mutation seems to be a minor factor, it is quite possible that this biosphere will have the misfortune to have "intelligent" life on our level in it just once.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not only there (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The sun will not explode, it will simply swell into a red giant.
That said, the sun's output increases by about 10% per billion years (all yellow dwarf stars gradually get hotter as they get older). So while the red dwarf stage is several billion years away, the sun's output will only be conducive to a habitable Earth for another 800 million to 1 billion years. Granted, both numbers are effectively "long after we're dead" so its just an academic discussion, but it's still the case that Earth will be too ho
Re: (Score:2)
You also need to factor in the time for Earth's internal processes to regenerate the resource deposits needed for a technological civilisation to actually
Re: (Score:2)
... where the mass extinction was more severe in the oceans than on the land.
Which the people writing TFA seem unaware of. Probably because few of the organisms which went extinct could be identified with the naked eye.
The P-T mass extinction was also more severe in the oceans than on land. And earlier mass extinctions had only traces of land-based life to extinguish.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. As long as the risk is abstract enough, distant enough or a "black swan" (very low probability, exceptionally high damage), most people cannot even do basic risk management. Explains a lot though. I am so glad I am not a parent. I would find the responsibility of having inflicted this mess on anybody to be a heavy burden. Apparently most parents just ignore what is in the process of happening though. Well, it is possible we are _all_ screwed. All it takes is for us to get reincarnated right into the
Re: (Score:3)
https://xkcd.com/2278/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Contradiction in terms.
Re:Not only there (Score:4, Insightful)
--Threat of nuclear war
--Threat of pandemic
--Threat of domestic unrest/collapse of civilization/simple crime
--Local environmental catastrophe (i.e. devastating tsunami, flood, wildfire)
If these things kill you, you are just as dead as if you die from climate change, but these things are much more likely to actually kill you, and more likely to kill you sooner too. So how is it irrational to worry more about things that are much more likely to kill you and maybe your kids even today, or maybe to kill your kids within their lifetimes, than climate change?
You say that people are irrational about risk, but I don't think it's irrational. It's not irrational to worry more about things that might take you out today. It's actually an optimum strategy because if you don't live through today, then any other strategies for long-term adaptation don't matter. In fact, this is why people die at age 70 instead of living longer in the first place. It's because our very biology is tuned to survive in the short term at the expense of surviving in the long term. Because the long term doesn't matter if you don't survive the short term.
I understand your sentiment but "irrational" isn't the right word.
Re: (Score:2)
No one around will be able to remember who I am to curse my name....so, what do I care?
I'm only here a short time and I intend to continue to enjoy my life to the max.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're screamin' in the desert, friend. One of the sucky parts about watching history is that by the time you've seen enough to start kinda getting it, it's time to just kick back and enjoy the rest of the ride. Sucks for our kids though, huh?
Pretty much. One of the reasons I decided not to have kids. I would feel responsible for inflicting this mess on them.
Re: Not only there (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't live through the 70s and 80s, did you. Nobody who did could possibly have found the last few months events in the least bit surprising. We may have hoped things would turn out better, but we didn't expect them to turn out well.
Re: (Score:3)
Heck, Romney warned them of it, and Obama laughed at him over it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current democrats would crucify JFK or a JFK type with same polices today.
Did you really think Biden would cut it?
The covid thing provided cover for them keeping him safely out of sight during much of the campaign, but when you did see him, you could see the cognitive decline even then.
Hell, ANYONE from the past would likely be better than current offerings by the parties...with more traditional US values.
I'd vote either a JFK or a Rea
Re: (Score:2)
To play devil's advocate - there are, what, seven billion people on the planet, more coming every day? They all want homes, clothes, food, and I don't see many volunteering to leave.
Worse: They all want an "American" lifestyle with a gas guzzler parked outside and producing ten bags of trash per day.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...while it *IS* a good life...
Sorry, we were here first.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you chose to have them. The writing was very much on the wall by 1980, so every kid today is the offspring of either an idiot, or of the children of idiots. Not a good situation.
Oh well, maybe the human species will survive it's increasing idiocy. But on the evidence of "the great silence", that would be the first time a species has done that.
Possibly there's enough time before the oceans boil for Earth to produce resources for another technological species, and they
Re:Not only there (Score:4, Insightful)
I only slightly disagree with your comment. I don't think humans don't *want* to do something about climate change, but rather we're afraid to. Specifically we're a tribal bunch of self centered arseholes who can't bear the thought of doing something if everyone doesn't chip in equally.
"Oh no I'm not saving energy, not while some dude in China is still using an old inefficient AC unit! When he chips in I'll chip in!"
Also I think you'll find the people who say "what climate change" are vanishingly small. Unless you only survey Fox News readership then it may be quite large.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, I was far too generous to human nature when I wrote "want". The tribal effects are certainly real. Problem is that acting on the level of a tribal society stops working at a certain population size. Which we have exceeded a long time ago.
Re:Not only there (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh no I'm not saving energy, not while some dude in China is still using an old inefficient AC unit! When he chips in I'll chip in!"
Remember all the howling and wailing when people were told to change their light bulbs?
There's your problem, right there.
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh no I'm not saving energy, not while some dude in China is still using an old inefficient AC unit! When he chips in I'll chip in!"
Remember all the howling and wailing when people were told to change their light bulbs?
There's your problem, right there.
Indeed. A large part of the human race cannot even do tiny steps. What is required are large, drastic steps. Hence my assessment.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. A large part of the human race cannot even do tiny steps. What is required are large, drastic steps. Hence my assessment.
The only way to take large, drastic steps is via new laws.
We all know how well that's going to work out, with all the lobbying.
(Question: Why is lobbying even a thing?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean switching to LEDs? Fun and strange fact is that in many locations electricity usage actually went up after switching because people became lazy and started leaving their lights on all the time, and also put up more lights. "It's only 5w, leave it on." True 5w uses less energy than 60w, but not if you leave the former on all the time and shut the latter off when you exit the room.
Plus outdoor LED light usage exploded which contributed to an increase in light pollution, something that screws up the
Re: (Score:2)
Fun and strange fact is that in many locations electricity usage actually went up after switching because people became lazy and started leaving their lights on all the time, and also put up more lights. "It's only 5w, leave it on." True 5w uses less energy than 60w, but not if you leave the former on all the time and shut the latter off when you exit the room.
Yep. Jevons' paradox in action. The solution is to ignore consumption and focus on production, if the energy is produced sustainably from renewable sources (or nuclear) it doesn't really matter how wasteful we are in consumption (within reason).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that's exactly what I have done.
I put in LED porch lights and now I leave them on 24/7....mostly for security. Now
Re: (Score:2)
Also I think you'll find the people who say "what climate change" are vanishingly small. Unless you only survey Fox News readership then it may be quite large.
Regional variation. Where I live, Fox "News" is very popular and lots and lots of people say "what climate change?" I should move...
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, it is the Ayn Rand School of Management: wait until a catastrophe occurs and then rely on the "magic of the marketplace" to prevent the disaster that already occurred.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup, it is the Ayn Rand School of Management: wait until a catastrophe occurs and then rely on the "magic of the marketplace" to prevent the disaster that already occurred.
That bad? I knew Rand was a fuck-up, but the market has never fixed anything. All it does is try to blame somebody else and take the money and run.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have mostly distanced myself from this mess. I see it too clearly and I have no desire to go insane from that. I am already doing quite a bit more than most on energy conservation, for example. I also rant on /. about how idiotic it is going over that cliff. What more can you ask?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well. Negativity is the new climate denialism.
This view that 'climate change exists but nobody will ever resolve it' is just the latest incarnation of climate denial.
Re: (Score:2)
Well. Negativity is the new climate denialism.
This view that 'climate change exists but nobody will ever resolve it' is just the latest incarnation of climate denial.
Nope. It is seeing the problem for something like 35 years now and nothing really effective being done. At some point failure becomes obvious. It has for this. It _would_ have been resolvable. And if we stop dicking around _now_ (and I mean _now_ and not in 10 years) we may still prevent civilization collapse. But at the speed things are actually going that seems rather far-fetched.
Re: (Score:2)
It is seeing the problem for something like 35 years now and nothing really effective being done. At some point failure becomes obvious.
Exactly. The scientific community has been saying (sometimes screaming) about climate change and mass extinction for the last 4 decades. The fact that we (the human species, especially those with the political/financial power to make things change) are still not really taking any notice means we likely never will, at least not before it's way too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Need it more than survival of the species?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the problem is we need all that fish and all that energy, and more.
"need"?
We don't need all that fish. We certainly don't need all the beef. We can eat a lot more of the stuff that doesn't wreck the planet as much.
We could also get by with a lot less energy. We don't need to leave all the exterior lights on all the time and drive humongous SUVs on the daily commute.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't need all that fish.
Maybe not but they certainly help a lot. Quite a lot of people get a good chunk of their food from the sea. If things are going so poorly for the oceans that we're seeing mass die offs of fish land based agriculture is probably going to be getting hit with problems as well so it could in fact turn out to be quite challenging to replace fish as a source of food if it comes to that.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand how bad it would be to move even fraction of humna population to Mars, or even to moon. The amount of energy required would be just silly.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand how bad it would be to move even fraction of humna population to Mars, or even to moon. The amount of energy required would be just silly.
Lets just say "impossible". This is not like the huge effort that was needed to ship people to the US to colonialize it and which did run for, what, several centuries? Unless we get something like direct matter-to-energy conversion or magic portals to Mars, getting people to Mars in significant numbers is quite infeasible.
Re: (Score:2)
The immigrants from Earth will rapidly be outnumbered by the locally breeding population. That is what has happened every time a new colony has succeeded. I just totalled the immigration numbers for the USA - between today and 1890, about 70 million immigrants arrived. So, about 250 million people have been born in the USA.
Even if Mars could be terraformed tomorrow, and 10 million people being teleported there every year, starting tomorrow,
Re:Not only there (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We've largely mined out the easy-to-find, easy-to-mine metals resources. An incipient technological apex predator will really struggle to develop an industry until those resources has replenished.
Some non-metals too. We (well, you) are likely to see the Earth's biggest resource of phosphate (an essential fer
Re: (Score:2)
And what exactly is the incentive for me to lower my level and quality of life I currently enjoy (being US/Western)?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the average area used per person doesn't decrease. Which, now that over half the global population lives in urban areas, not in the country, is happening.
We're already at something like 80% usage of the available topsoil resource, and we're losing between 1 and 2% of that to the sea per year. Ther
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Can", "may", etc. Yes, _theoretically_ we can reduce the impact enough that even human civilization will survive. But practically (i.e. "theoretically" but you actually take all factors into account instead of putting a fluffy white haze over the really bad problems), we obviously cannot and this is the end of the line. I am not "falling" for anything here.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree wholeheartedly. It is rapidly becoming economically unfeasible to continue non renewable strategies. Also, whichever way you see things, and I agree the situation can seem dire, defeatism is counter productive.
"Defeatism" would requite my assessment to be unrealistic. I do not think it is. If we had 50 years more at this time, no problem. We are moving fast enough with the solutions for that. 30 years more, still a catastrophe, but a small one. But realistically, we have something like negative 20 years or so and however fast renewables are moving now (still not very fast), it is by far too slow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Such as having more than one child per family.
The Chinese recognised the problem. Even they couldn't make the solution stick, and have given up. So ... a lot more people will die. Chinese and non-Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Market the solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Current Phase: Bulking (Score:2)
That's why for the last few years I've been consuming as much seafood as I can. Eat up while you can, people!
Re: (Score:2)
Time to call out some liars (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody claiming to support "right to life" who isn't working hard in an attempt to avert this looming environmental catastrophe is a liar and a cheat. Children coming into the world now will have to face the consequences of our fecklessness.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between basic necessity and waste. Rather than questioning if I wear cotton why not instead ask if my computer was on last night while I was asleep? On Slashdot I'm sure you'll find a shitton of people who can't even do the basics to save energy, much less change their diet or their cloths.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is rather incoherent. What are you saying? Are you saying it's ok to waste life? Or that it's ok to do for basic necessity?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I know loads of people who leave their computers/etc. on 24/7 because they can't wait ten seconds for them to boot up.
Re: (Score:2)
Computers are rather efficient. For the record mine aggressively goes to sleep because I'll save every penny I can, but the difference between 24/7 on and totally off for a day is irrelevant compared to cooking dinner, running the washing machine, using the kettle a few times...
I hear all these tips for reducing your carbon footprint that on the face of it just seem like a tiny fraction of nothing. How much total energy should a person/family unit use per day? If everyone reduced their usage to that number,
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to spend a little time at a crisis pregnancy center (e.g. affiliates of Care Net) and get informed about what a life-changing miracle it was for those women/couples to have chosen life instead of abortion. It's really quite touching. It's why my wife and I have been supporting them financially for many years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sayings are just that, only sayings! Trying to use a tongue-in-cheek generalization to claim that children have no legal protections from harm, and when a child dies that no one will care is very fallacious.
The father gives more than a damn! So does the mother. And the brothers and sisters. Certainly the grandparents give a damn their grandkid died. Uncles, Aunts, cousins, friends of the family, friends of the child, teachers, coaches, babysitters, nannys, daycare workers,neighbors. No to mention eme
Re: (Score:3)
I think you missed what the above poster was getting at. They're more or less just posting a classic phrase used as a critique of conservatives.
The idea is that while many conservatives are against abortion claiming concern for the life of the child they are also often fine with the death penalty and against many of the social programs that keep kids in poor families from poverty and all the associated ills. Hence "life is sacred until birth"
Before people start trolling me btw, all I'm doing is explaining
Re: (Score:2)
That must be why every time someone is killed, society collectively shrugs its shoulders and says "these things happen"? How there's no police investigation, no trials, no jail time for the guilty? You really should take a moment to consider how ridiculous your statement is.
Is (United States) society perfect? Far from it. Some people do die with very little damns given. There are
climate isn't the one fishing out the oceans (Score:4, Interesting)
That blame lies squarely on humans.
Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
Memories (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Memories (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, we need to do more but we are doing well
bahahahahahahaha. Oh man. You grew up in a time where even the loser got a participation award right?
No mate, we are not "doing well". We're fucking terrible at this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure who's worse the outright deniers and wackoes who think that climate change is a Chinese hoax or you faux contrarians.
Our currenty "good" environment is based on laws passed 30+ years ago, laws which would have NO chance of passing if they were written today, and laws that the right wing idiots in this country are trying to overturn.
Things will be oh so awesome until they are not. When the pacific is fished out sometime in the next decade, will it still be more "doom and gloom mongering" ?
Remem
Re:Memories (Score:5, Informative)
"Having grown up with smog and other serious air pollution as well as rivers so polluted that no fish could live in them yet today there is no smog and salmon in my local river, I see this as yet more doom and gloom mongering. Yes, we need to do more but we are doing well and if all we get is more lies to say we are not doing enough then people will give up caring."
I really, really, really want to ask if you're that stupid, but I decided that I don't want to know.
Yes, we reduced smog and water pollution... because of the doom and gloom and because people DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Remember the Clean Air Act? The Clean Water Act? All advanced against corporate interests who cried mightily that if they had to install catalytic convertors in cars or water purification and treatment systems no one would buy their more expensive products and that they'd go bankrupt. Didn't happen, did it?
Same thing applies here. Only we're progressing past the point where mitigation is going to prevent all of the bad effects that have been predicted. We are already seeing sea level rise, more extreme weather events and patterns, more drought and forest fires, more hurricanes and tornadoes. Been to Lake Powell recently? I hear things are just swell there too.
What will probably happen is that we're going to get more Katrina's in the Gulf and Sandy's in the Atlantic and 100-mile long tornadoes criss-crossing the Midwest and droughts and fires in the West, all destroying property and infrastructure and disrupting food production and supply chains faster than we can rebuild them.
Too many hypocrites (Score:2)
We all try and do our bit but a large proportion of the population have cognitive dissonance wrt climate change. Eg: I have a neighbour who displays poster for the greens in her front window. Meanwhile her boyfriend drives a brand new V8 SUV. Go figure.
Climate??? (Score:2, Insightful)
No-one believes it (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to accept that the campaign has failed.
No-one believes CO2 emissions will cause catastrophe. No-one believes that the measures currently proposed (conversion to wind and solar power generation, mainly) are either possible, affordable or effective.
If you mainly read Slashdot, the Guardian, the NY Times, Ars Technica, if your main TV watching is the BBC or PBS, if you work on the coasts in tech or media or in Washington or London in government, this claim will strike you as absurd. After all, everyone around you and everything you come across agrees that we have to eliminate CO2 emissions, that wind and solar are perfectly cost-effective replacements for coal and gas generation. Perhaps more importantly, there is total consensus in your world that local action is important and effective. The Green New Deal or some variant of it is both doable and effective and would be tackling the climate crisis.
The song has remained the same for around 30 years now. But outside some very restricted social circles, no-one believes this. Look at what they are doing. China and Russia simply don't show up at COP. China continues to install coal fired generation as fast as it can, and to finance and build it around the world. India declines to accept any targets for emission reduction. Look at opinion surveys in the UK and US. You find the same thing, every time. Climate issues sometimes rank as important. But when it comes to paying to make reductions in emissions, the answer is invariably no. Look at the UK - the attempts to reduce car use with fast-track pandemic regulation, and the opposition that has raised.
The project for moving to wind and renewable generation isn't going to work because of intermittency and the lack of any storage solution equal to the demand of providing constant power. But even if it did, even if it would make the US power generations sector carbon neutral, it isn't going to make a big dent in US total emissions, and even if it did that, its not going to make much difference in a world in which global emissions are around 37 billion tons, and US ones under 5 billion.
Whatever the US and the UK and EU do in the next few years, we are going to see global emissions well north of 40 billion tons a year by 2035. Read the IEA reports if you doubt this. The UK has a Net Zero project under discussion. It started out as truly massive, almost total move to wind and solar for generation. The government is backing off from it as fast as it decently can, as it becomes clear that its neither affordable nor doable.
So pieces like this, forecasting what will happen several hundred years out? They are first of all absurd. To forecast that far out you have to have certainty about scientific and technical discovery and development. It would be like forecasting, in 1850, the internal combustion engine, computers, relativity and nuclear power, and antibiotics. We simply do not have the ability to make such forecasts. The only purpose they serve is to act as a sort of catechism for believers. We have reached the point where there is a huge gap not only between what the believers accept and what almost all the rest of the world accepts. We have also reached the point where the believers do almost nothing in pursuit of their supposed objectives but publish these vague doom laden pieces forecasting various kinds of climate disasters well after the end of the lives of everyone who reads it.
Meanwhile the world goes on. There will be another COP. Nothing will be decided at it. The Guardian will continue to claim that every storm is an omen of the impending disaster. And China will add, over the next three years, about 4 times as much coal fired generation as the UK has total generating capacity. And useful idiots in the Climate Change Committee will still be demanding that the UK move to wind, and will still have no idea how to provide enough storage to make that possible.
And calling everyone they disagree with 'deniers'.
Re: (Score:3)
I see a few problems with the "greens". OK, we agree that CO2 is a big problem and we should reduce its production. Well, Germany is shutting down its nuclear power plants and is burning gas and coal instead. Should the gas and coal power plants be shut down first since nuclear does not produce CO2?
How about building new nuclear power plants? "Oh it takes too long to build and is too expensive". Part of the time and expense is the amount of red tape, which can certainly be reduced.
"Renewables will be enough
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
China continues to install coal fired generation as fast as it can
Ahhh yes the ol' look over there it's China excuse. China in terms of emissions per capita is going to elevate its population out of poverty with a fraction of the climate emissions the USA have put out (and continues to put out).
For all the coal generation they are building, they are shutting down almost equal amounts with their coal consumption remaining stagnant over the years consuming less of it now than they did in 2013. In the meantime how's your nuclear research going? I'll tell you it's going well,
Re: (Score:2)
Per capita emissions are unimportant. Though China's are about the same as the EU's.
The only thing that counts is total tonnage emitted. China emits 12 billion tons a year and rising.
https://www.iea.org/news/globa... [iea.org]
This is not about making any excuses for anyone. The point is a very simple one. China is not going to lower emissions. Neither is India, Indonesia etc.
This means that global emissions are not going to fall. Or not to anything like the levels, usually considered to be around 10 billion ton
Re: (Score:2)
No-one believes CO2 emissions will cause catastrophe. No-one believes that the measures currently proposed (conversion to wind and solar power generation, mainly) are either possible, affordable or effective.
Speak for yourself. Especially the younger generation today has a very different take on the urgency to curb CO2 emissions. Exploration for new fossil reserves is slowly grinding to a halt, because while emptying currently productive reserves is (mostly) still profitable, investment to bring new reserves online makes less & less economic sense. Why? Sustainable sources like solar, wind etc. have become too cheap to ignore. The storage problem is being solved as we speak. Over time, this will curb emiss
Doesn't belong on Slashdot (Score:2)
C'mon, content moderators, this story doesn't belong on Slashdot.
Guess we better build nuclear plants (Score:3)
Oh wait, we can't do that either
32 degrees warming is alot (Score:2)
Penn and Deutsch looked at the consequences of several scenarios, from global warming remaining at the minimum expectation to high emission scenarios that would result in 32 degrees Fahrenheit of warming during the next three hundred years.
I'm no climate scientist, but I don't think 32 degrees warming will happen. This is what they assumed for extinction. Nothing would be arms with that much warming
climate deniers will say (Score:2)
Their preferred strategy doesn't require them to get off the couch. Physically, or mentally.
Re: (Score:2)
So let the people who can do something about it do something about it. Stop trying to rile up a public who can't
"Can't"?
Are you saying you can't do a single thing to consume less of the bad stuff and more of the good stuff? That it's completely out of your control to not eat so much beef or drive a more economical car?
Re: (Score:2)
"All right, the oceans recovered with a new population of species each time." That's true. Now we only must wait for humans to so totally screw the planet that humans are no more. Then all will be well because "the oceans recovered with a new population of species each time."