Conditions On Earth May Be Moving Outside the 'Safe Operating Space' For Humanity (cnn.com) 323
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Human actions have pushed the world into the danger zone on several key indicators of planetary health, threatening to trigger dramatic changes in conditions on Earth, according to a new analysis from 29 scientists in eight countries. The scientists analyzed nine interlinked "planetary boundaries," which they define as thresholds the world needs to stay within to ensure a stable, livable planet. These include climate change, biodiversity, freshwater and land use, and the impact of synthetic chemicals and aerosols. Human activities have breached safe levels for six of these boundaries and are pushing the world outside a "safe operating space" for humanity, according to the report, published on Wednesday in the journal Science Advances.
The nine boundaries, first set out in a 2009 paper, aim to establish a set of defined "limits" on changes humans are making to the planet -- from pumping out planet-heating pollution to clearing forests for farming. Beyond these limits, the theory goes, the risk of destabilizing conditions on Earth increases dramatically. The limits are designed to be conservative, to enable society to solve the problems before reaching a "very high risk zone," said Katherine Richardson, a professor in biological oceanography at the University of Copenhagen and a co-author on the report. She pointed to the unprecedented summer of extreme weather the world has just experienced at 1.2 degrees Celsius of global warming. "We didn't think it was going to be like this at 1 degree [Celsius]" she said. "No human has experienced the conditions that we're experiencing right now," she added.
Of the three boundaries that scientists found are still within a safe space, two of them -- ocean acidification and the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere -- are moving in the wrong direction. There is some good news, however. The ozone layer was on the wrong side of the boundary in the 1990s, Richardson said. But thanks to international cooperation to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals, it is on track to recover completely. Crossing planetary boundaries does not mean the world has reached a disastrous tipping point. Hitting one does not mean "falling off a cliff," Richardson said. But it is a clear warning signal. The significance of the planetary boundaries model is that it doesn't analyze climate and biodiversity in isolation, the report authors said. Instead, it looks at the interaction of both, as well as a host of other ways humans are affecting the planet. Breaching one boundary is likely to have knock-on effects for others.
The nine boundaries, first set out in a 2009 paper, aim to establish a set of defined "limits" on changes humans are making to the planet -- from pumping out planet-heating pollution to clearing forests for farming. Beyond these limits, the theory goes, the risk of destabilizing conditions on Earth increases dramatically. The limits are designed to be conservative, to enable society to solve the problems before reaching a "very high risk zone," said Katherine Richardson, a professor in biological oceanography at the University of Copenhagen and a co-author on the report. She pointed to the unprecedented summer of extreme weather the world has just experienced at 1.2 degrees Celsius of global warming. "We didn't think it was going to be like this at 1 degree [Celsius]" she said. "No human has experienced the conditions that we're experiencing right now," she added.
Of the three boundaries that scientists found are still within a safe space, two of them -- ocean acidification and the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere -- are moving in the wrong direction. There is some good news, however. The ozone layer was on the wrong side of the boundary in the 1990s, Richardson said. But thanks to international cooperation to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals, it is on track to recover completely. Crossing planetary boundaries does not mean the world has reached a disastrous tipping point. Hitting one does not mean "falling off a cliff," Richardson said. But it is a clear warning signal. The significance of the planetary boundaries model is that it doesn't analyze climate and biodiversity in isolation, the report authors said. Instead, it looks at the interaction of both, as well as a host of other ways humans are affecting the planet. Breaching one boundary is likely to have knock-on effects for others.
Don't worry about life and the planet (Score:5, Informative)
The scientists analyzed nine interlinked "planetary boundaries," which they define as thresholds the world needs to stay within to ensure a stable, livable planet.
The planet will continue to survive despite all the crossed boundaries they cited in the paper, as will human and other life forms. The real question is how much will humans suffer because of the crossover of these boundaries.
Re: (Score:2)
yep.
Looking forward to running the experiment and seeing how many humans survive.
Re:Don't worry about life and the planet (Score:5, Insightful)
The planet? Absolutely.
Other life forms? For sure.
Humans? Hopefully, but... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The Boy Who Cried Wolf [wikipedia.org]
Re:Don't worry about life and the planet (Score:5, Insightful)
You do know that the boy died in the end, yes?
Re:Don't worry about life and the planet (Score:4, Funny)
Everybody dies in the end.
Re: (Score:3)
The sheep died. The fate of the boy is not stated in the fable.
Re:Don't worry about life and the planet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't worry about life and the planet (Score:5, Insightful)
We have the unique ability that other large lifeforms lack: we can inhabit other planets.
We do not have that ability yet.
Re: (Score:3)
It is far from likely we ever will though. We can't even stop fighting over the land and resources we have.
Re: Don't worry about life and the planet (Score:4, Informative)
The absolute most inhabitable place on earth, now and in the future, is more habitable than any other planet we can reach.
This isn't to say I'm against a base on Mars for instance; we can learn a lot by actually doing that. What we learn can benefit us in many ways. But don't make the mistake of thinking that solves a problem directly.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, you linked to the wrong video. This is the one [youtube.com] you want.
Re:Don't worry about life and the planet (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with shrill alarmism predicting imminent doom is that it has the opposite effect than the authors intend. Rather than scaring denialists into accepting AGW, it feeds into "climate fatigue," and people roll their eyes. Then, in a few years, the denialists will point at this report as yet another Chicken Little false alarm.
Even worse problem really (Score:2, Insightful)
Rather than scaring denialists into accepting AGW, it feeds into "climate fatigue," and people roll their eyes.
Although fatigue is real, there's an even worse problem.
We've already crossed several lines where people claimed the climate was irreparably damaged.
If that's the case why do anything else then? You can't possibly help past that boundary after all, that's what we were told, so why bother?
These new boundaries are just more lines in the sand that will be crossed, with even more people saying "well w
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we could try to eke out a few more years so we'll be dead by the time it really comes crashing down and it's not us but our kids that have to deal with the fallout.
Ain't that a goal worth pursuing?
Re: (Score:2)
A billion years? Our peeps can't even be assed to avoid a disaster rolling around in a few decades and you want them to plan for a time when nobody that could even remotely remember them is alive?
Re: (Score:2)
Space colonies are nothing else than a profound "We are to lazy to solve the problem, thus lets run away" statement. Whoever thinks space colonies are a solution to survival on Earth probably also thinks a win in the lottery is a way out of poverty. While technically true, I would not invest in lottery tickets.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the same as saying it's necessarily the best answer to this climate problem and obviously keeping space research going does not and should not preclude action in other areas. It is, however, a required answer that's required for long term survival.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Even worse problem really (Score:4, Insightful)
We've already crossed several lines where people claimed the climate was irreparably damaged.
If that's the case why do anything else then? You can't possibly help past that boundary after all, that's what we were told, so why bother?
Because we're still actively damaging it? Perhaps we could possibly help by, I dunno, ceasing to make it even worse?
There's a lot of room between "great climate for humans" and "completely broken". The more GHGs we keep emitting, the further we move away from the norm we're used to, the harder it will be to adapt, and the more expensive it will get in costs and suffering.
Claiming it's "too late to do anything" is just the next stage of Mann's six stages of climate denial [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
>> If that's the case why do anything else then? You can't possibly help ... so why bother?
That is wrong.
You can, and you should bother.
"The titanic is sinking, most people will drown, so why bother swimming ??"
Re: (Score:2)
I almost wonder if there is a deliberate push to cause "climate fatigue", just so people don't care anymore. There are issues wrapped into issues with the entire attempts to deal with AGW:
Heavy handed attempts at regulation, which never address the bigwigs who do the most damage to the environment, but put the burden on the middle class or others. You can take away peoples' cars, but until you address the coal plants and nations building them hand-over-fist, at best, it is virtue signaling, standing on th
Re: (Score:2)
It will be nuclear reactors, ideally thorium based, and of a modern, passively safe design that is idiot-resistant.
So, one that doesn't exist yet. If you can't just walk away from it and have it automatically scram without any external power then it's unacceptable from a risk standpoint.
Also, if you have the battery technology you're talking about, you don't need nuclear. At all.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with shrill alarmism predicting imminent doom is that it has the opposite effect than the authors intend. Rather than scaring denialists into accepting AGW, it feeds into "climate fatigue," and people roll their eyes. Then, in a few years, the denialists will point at this report as yet another Chicken Little false alarm.
I do agree that I get annoyed with the alarmism, but I have to point out that https://www.science.org/doi/10... [slashdot.org]">the actual paper is a lot more clear. It doesn't say that this will make the world uninhabitable, what it says is these are boundaries beyond which we will be experiencing conditions not previously seen in the holocene (that is, the last 10,000 years) and therefore may experience unpredictable effects.
It then goes further, putting upper and lower limits on the locations of those boundaries, bu
Re:Don't worry about life and the planet (Score:4, Insightful)
The actual research is quite calm and objective, it's the reporting that is the issue. They need a clickbait headline that will either concern or enrage, but either way draw in eyeballs.
It's going to be painful because a lot of people are going to have to be forced to take action. Either economically, or at the end of a gun if things get really bad. The worst part is that if it wasn't for vested interests throwing propaganda at them, we could all benefit greatly from this opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Solidly debunked by Trump and Bill Barr, while being confirmed by the Mueller report.
"...the west with capitalism has always been a much cleaner place than non-capitalist societies."
Cleaner, that's the argument?
Really got the dumb on display this morning.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes because capitalism yields productivity in the most efficient ways human can manage an economy."
If it is "most efficient" why does CO2 skyrocket?
"Now go look up what the Soviets did to their environment at the same time they wrecked their economy."
The soviets wrecked their economy by some combination of the Afghanistan war and Chernobyl, you know, but engaging in politics you admire. How is that relevant? And how does their environment tie into that?
"air so toxic you literally can't breath it safely o
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because capitalism yields productivity in the most efficient ways a few humans can dominate an economy.
FTFY
Re:Don't worry about life and the planet (Score:5, Insightful)
In the eternal words of George Carlin "Save the planet? The planet doesn't need saving. The planet is fine. We're fucked".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, let me offer this scenario in case they're right. The speed of human lives is very small compared to climate change, even when we're the cause of it. Add to that that we ar
Re: (Score:2)
The speed of human lives is very small compared to climate change, even when we're the cause of it. Add to that that we are extremely adaptable and very good chances are we'll come up with solutions when in a dire situation.
Wrong. This is the problem with human-caused climate change: the rate of change is fast enough that it happens in a few decades times.
Humans have not really been very adaptable if you look at history. Drought, famines, diseases (plagues) have caused million of people to die, at a time where world population was below 1 billion, so it was actually a good proportion of the world population. For instance, the Black Death [wikipedia.org] wiped between 17% and 50% of the world population of the 14th century (broad estimates). M
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climatologists have had [google.com] that [bas.ac.uk] data [wikipedia.org] for at least 30 years. You're right, the climate over the past ~million years has undergone great shifts - and of larger magnitude than what we're currently
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we're making the shift more dramatic
But even in the last thousand, we've experienced the Medieval Warming Period, the Little Ice Age, and our current period. The transition from the Little Ice Age to the current period happened in a few decades. 1776 was a part of the Little Ice Age. During this period, it snowed in June. Krakatoa had nothing to do with it; it came decades later. 1850 is roughly the end of the Little Ice Age.
Re: (Score:2)
Those phenomena in the past 1000 years certainly were disruptive, but 1) weren't necessarily global in scope, 2) were miniscule in magnitude compared to the swings in the past million years, and 3) were downright gentle in their rate of change compared to the present. This XKCD comic [xkcd.com] is a fine illustration.
Eschatoloy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the life forms we recognize will die, too.
It's not just us going away.
Said the dinosaurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the life forms they would have recognized DID die, so if they did say that, they were smarter than we thought.
What's our excuse? We actually know what's happening to us, we can stop it, and we aren't...
Soylent Green Is People (Score:2)
Say it with me (Score:3)
GLOBAL.
BOILING.
Might as well prepare for Ovenworld (Score:4, Insightful)
People are not going to do shit until their home is wiped out, then they'll be too busy surviving day to day to care about the big picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's power outages in Texas? From extraordinarily hot weather? How is this something I'm just hearing about now? I took a look and it appears the emergency is over. https://www.msn.com/en-us/weat... [msn.com]
Global warming is a "first world problem" since it is only those with reliable electricity that have the luxury to care about their "carbon footprint". If people want more action on addressing CO2 emissions then I suggest keeping it as a "first world problem" by not threatening their electricity supply wi
Re: (Score:3)
Funny that you call it a first world problem. In the less developed places, people are simply dying from it. Dead people don't have problems, so you're technically correct. The best kind of correctness.
We only have one earth. (Score:2)
>> Global warming is a "first world problem"
The thing is: there is no second world. We only have one earth.
Re: (Score:2)
"There's power outages in Texas? From extraordinarily hot weather?"
No, there's high demand for power due to that weather.
"How is this something I'm just hearing about now? " /.
Because you get your news from
"If people want more action on addressing CO2 emissions then I suggest keeping it as a "first world problem"..."
You're talking about "first world" in a thread about Texas? Texas has a third world government, always has.
"...by not threatening their electricity supply with solutions that make costs go up o
Re: (Score:2)
Wait Until The Meteor Hits (Score:2)
Wormwood anyone?
Billion and counting? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is working pretty hard on it, but they can't do it all by themselves. The US used to do some great work in this regard, too, but in the past years they suddenly stopped.
C'mon, people, this has to be a global effort, we can't get anywhere if we only have limited conflicts. Break out the nukes, it's time to be serious about saving this planet from the disease that we are.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Billion and counting? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
all you have to do is fuck with people's food supply & millions die pretty quickly
Like I said, Russia is working on it.
At the same time, they're trying their best to make us live healthier. Russia and Ukraine together hold about 60% of the global sunflower oil market, and without, what do you plan to fry your potato chips in, hmm?
Re: (Score:3)
African poulation is about to rise. In 2100 the four biggest cities in the world are most likely all in Africa.
After that growth they will also stabilize if they do not kill each other first over which ever god they prefer at that time.
As regions near the equator become more and more inhabitable, denizens there were gradually die off.
No shit, Sherlock. (Score:2)
EOM.
If they really believed that ... (Score:2, Insightful)
... we'd be going nuclear ASAP.
Since we aren't, I don't think that even the approved elites really believe all this. But dang, it's a useful political and social tool.
Re: (Score:2)
The approved elites want to maintain a population below 500 million.
Too bad that would prevent a planet-killer asteroid defection program, but they're retarded too.
They think their AGI God will save them.
Re: (Score:2)
No. 20 years ago that was the right answer, today it's solar, wind, and global grid interconnections, because those can be built a LOT quicker.
Re: (Score:2)
Slap a experimental sicker on both sides (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Peer review means that some subject matter experts took a look for things like spelling and grammar as well as blatant errors in logic or math that could sink the argument. What it does not mean is that it's been tested in a laboratory setting for repeatability and accuracy.
There's been some very absurd claims made in peer reviewed science articles, and people have gamed the system to get published just to show how flawed it is to be "peer reviewed". The problem with anything new in science is that by bei
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. I'm happy to have sacrificed some slashdot karma to have brought your post to surface.
Re:"anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN"!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Your comment is an utterly ridiculous attempt at distraction and willful fallacy.
Re:"anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN"!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Peer review is still our gold standard of publishing quality, at least when applied consistently by reputable publications. Nobody's claiming it guarantees perfection, but it's the best available for new information.
If a paper has been properly reviewed by experts in the field, and you are not an expert in that field yourself, then you'd best take it seriously until further notice. You may "suspect" the theory has flaws, but as you're not citing any, it's pretty safe to dismiss your baseless suspicions as standard Dunnings-Kruger - you don't even know why you don't like it, so you're attacking the whole process of peer review instead. Perhaps you should apply the same level of scepticism to your own gut reactions?
Just FYI, this paper [science.org] is a follow-up to the original 2009 paper [nature.com] which originally described these nine boundaries, and that found we'd already passed three of them. That paper has not only not been withdrawn, it has nearly 14,000 citations [google.com], so it's clearly stood the test of time. Finding that more boundaries have been passed in the last 14 years is not exactly an "extraordinary claim", and claiming such only further undermines your own credibility.
AND have data available online (Score:2)
Given that we have the ability to do so, making the data recorded in the experiments underlying the paper freely available online should be mandatory. This allows the sceptical to look at the actual figures and search for evidence that points to fabrication, data suppression etc. It is disappointing that it's not required already.
Re: (Score:2)
Peer review is still our gold standard of publishing quality
I'm not claiming otherwise. We need some bar to clear on what to publish in science journals, and peer review is likely as good as we got now.
Nobody's claiming it guarantees perfection
Nobody? Maybe they don't claim perfection but they put more value into peer review than it deserves. Peer reviewed papers have been proven very wrong before, and many peer reviewed papers go on to be proven correct over and over. Claiming something is peer reviewed just don't go as far with me as it used to given how many times its been used to defend papers shown
Re:"anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN"!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nah. Just keep driving that SUV, as long as enough people don't give a fuck, I can still continue living it large.
By the way, I'm 50 and I don't have kids, I only need that planet another 20-30 years, that's probably also as long as it will be habitable, at least most likely, or at least in the area I live in, and after that, why would I give a fuck? What's your excuse?
At 63 I'm less optimistic (Score:2)
Given the speed with which things are decaying - just look at the record temperatures being experienced this northern summer - I'm not sure I'll make it off this planet before it all goes really badly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then at least you'll have the satisfaction of "told ya so" being your last words.
Re: (Score:2)
"I can't wait to turn into a pillar of salt. God said I would if I looked too closely."
We can't wait either, but in the meantime we can all be amused by your stunning confusion on the sources of mythology.
Love it - cruel but fair... (Score:2)
I get bragging points for not owning a car as well. But I live in a city with entirely adequate public transport, though the ability of drivers to use relatively minor issues with the quality as an excuse is remarkable.
Re: (Score:2)
This is embarrassing to watch.
Reproduction is an essential aspect of living. Yes, it produces "future carbon consumers", just look at what your parents did.
One things for sure, whatever reasons there were why you didn't reproduce, they did NOT include saving the planet.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, right-leaning politicians used that to declare global-warming was fake.
Absolutely nothing: They didn't research that, at least, not sufficiently to have a plan.
[Citation needed]
You've collapsed a 9-point argument to one that doesn't agree with your flimsy data: IIRC, tobacco companies used this trick too. Yes, the scientists offer little hard data, making the real point of their study, thus: We're fucking-up this planet in a number of ways and like global-warming, the time of dangerous-to-humans co
Re:This was "dozens" of scientists? That's a lot!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, right-leaning politicians used that to declare global-warming was fake.
This is why I avoid the debate over global warming, it immediately devolves into name calling and we get nowhere on actual solutions. I prefer to simply concede that global warming is at least some kind of threat at some point in the future so that we can move on to a debate on what to do about it. Often the proposed solutions for CO2 induced global warming is a load of shit so then I can at least decide if I want to ignore the load of shit and move on or try to have a reasoned debate on how the proposed solution is a load of shit. If the debate starts with name calling then I have a suspicion that it will remain with name calling and there's nothing productive that can come from a debate.
Absolutely nothing: They didn't research that, at least, not sufficiently to have a plan.
If they have nothing to add on how to solve the problem then I have little reason to take the time to go over the problem. There's been plenty already written about global warming as a problem so it's going to take a very convincing summary of the findings to get me to read further.
[Citation needed]
I'm tired of playing the "citation needed" game on Slashdot. If you want a citation out of me then first provide one of your own so I have some idea that this is an honest debate. I've had people demand a citation before so I provided one, only to have them give no citation in response on why they doubt it only that they claim it is biased or something. I can keep providing citations but get nowhere because the response isn't any opposing citation but just a string of excuses to not believe any of them. If you don't believe the claim then provide a citation on why you don't believe it, and maybe I find it convincing and concede the point, or maybe I provide a citation of my own and we can compare notes. You cite something first, then I'll consider if I want to take the time to dig up citations of my own. If you don't like that then just ignore my claim. As I wrote earlier, I'm not all that interested in debating the problem as that tends to go nowhere, rather I prefer to debate solutions since that is the far more important matter to consider.
You've collapsed a 9-point argument to one that doesn't agree with your flimsy data: IIRC, tobacco companies used this trick too. Yes, the scientists offer little hard data, making the real point of their study, thus: We're fucking-up this planet in a number of ways and like global-warming, the time of dangerous-to-humans consequences is approaching.
If you want to make some progress on not "fucking-up this planet" then I suggest debating solutions than trying to debate the problem. If your solution provides benefits beyond merely lower CO2 emissions then I believe it could be something that many people would find useful to consider. People can disagree on the problem but agree on the solution. If the solution to CO2 emissions creates many more problems then it's not likely a solution that many will agree to. We could bomb every coal power plant today to have lower CO2 emissions tomorrow but that will leave people unable to heat their homes or cook their food, so expect some resistance to that idea. Come up with an idea that lowers CO2 while still providing abundant and affordable energy and you'll find much less resistance.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a shame that the Wikipedia article you linked to only uses US sources for costs. They seem to constantly over-estimate the cost of off-shore wind, probably because the US doesn't have very much of it.
As an example, last year the UK auctioned off-shore wind development opportunities at about $33/MWh, about half the lower estimate in that article.
Re: (Score:3)
Canada's National Post published an article by a physician speaking authoritatively about how our anti-covid measures were a joke as could obviously be seen by Sweden's success without them. ...Except it took about two seconds to find out that A) Sweden DID have lockdown protocols, they were just not as strict as others, B) They had a high compliance rate without a lot of obstinate right-wing nuts doing the opposite just to stick it to the government, and C) they had a higher excess death toll attributable
Re: (Score:2)
It is the IPCC that says we need "nukes" so if you have a problem with that solution then take it up with them.
I bring up solutions because I've grown tired of trying to debate the problem. It appears people tend to agree with the IPCC on the problem so I mention the IPCC as a source on a solution. You don't believe that "nukes" is a vital part of the solution? Then perhaps I will find reason to doubt we have a problem. Both the problem and solution I give come from the same source so I would expect tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If 10% of doomsday predictions come true, we're talking about 10% of bullets flying your way hitting, you're aware of that?
Personally, a 0% outcome is what I'd expect as a positive result. Because one doomsday is enough to, well, ya know, END IT.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you ask "How's that prediction working out?" of the people in Florida who're losing their homes because high tides are getting higher, storm surges are getting higher, flooding is happening more often and insurance companies are refusing to issue insurance in low-lying coastal areas because the risk of flooding destroying the house is less a risk and more of a certainty these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I be there with a camera when he does it? That's a viral video right then and there, though YouTube will quickly take it down for violence.
Insurance companies will become irrelevant (Score:2)
Soon, insurance companies will become irrelevant.
Not in a good way.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't, but I never take movies as serious predictions anyway. At best they're metaphors (sometimes pretty good ones). Often they're just silly. I really liked "Tarantula", but that didn't make me expect giant spiders.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the gradual temperature cycle of a few degrees over 1000's of years that is the concern. The concern is the sudden temperature cycle of several degrees over a few human generations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is so deeply scientific. A cartoon with no data references and a scale that dramatically changes from 500 years to _4_ years on the same screen with out ever mentioned things like how when you average out data over a 500 year time block you are smoothing out blips and dips while zooming in to a 4 year granularity will show every extreme along the way. Nor does it mention 95% of the cartoon is based on proxy data which is inherently inaccurate, or that more recent data was originally mercury thermomet
Re: (Score:3)
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when someone reads something until he finds something that he likes and stops there, because he already found what he wanted to see and doesn't read on to see how the story ends.
Pretty sure that's how people who root for the Imperium were satisfied with TESB and didn't bother watching ROTJ.
First, climate, and whether or not human life is possible on this planet by extension, isn't just a function of temperature. If it was, we'd probably find life around the equato
human population has a huge problem. (Score:2)
>> This article is utter rubbish. We know that neither humanity or the planet will die because these kind of temperature rises.
Yeah. human population count will decrease a factor of 100x, but do not worry, it will be very painful.
>> It is a blatant lie that no humans ever has experienced this.
Nope. gradual changes over thousands of years allow our food sources to adapt.
At those times, human population worldwide was less than just Tokyo today.
Take 8 billion people together on a small planet.
Remov
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you get tired of using the same straw man logical fallacy over and over again? Jeez, buddy, at least try to come up with something new. The famous XKCD cartoon illustrates the situation well. Perhaps you should look it up and educate yourself a little.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe in science. That _requires_ the scientific method. You've heard of that? Don't you get tired of posting a cartoon which provides no data, has no testable anything, with a varying scale as if that is evidence of anything?
You know how science works, right? If you did you would NEVER refer to that ridiculous cartoon ever again. You'd be offended by that propaganda bullshit.
And in this case which logical fallacy have I committed? The one that says argument by authority is a bullshit argument? O
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Crank up the AC a notch.
Re: (Score:2)
Weather, shmeather, it never rains in my basement.
Well, unless the pipes are leaking.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really true. But they have a strong tendency to believe what they want to believe, and when they do agree that a change is necessary, they got different strong opinions as to what change.
Lalalalala lalala (Score:2)
Daina.0 follows this process:
1) Puts fingers in the ears.
2) Sings "Lalal alalalalala"