![Earth Earth](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/earth_64.png)
![Science Science](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/science_64.png)
Earth on Verge of Five Catastrophic Climate Tipping Points, Scientists Warn (theguardian.com) 234
Many of the gravest threats to humanity are drawing closer, as carbon pollution heats the planet to ever more dangerous levels, scientists have warned. From a report: Five important natural thresholds already risk being crossed, according to the Global Tipping Points report, and three more may be reached in the 2030s if the world heats 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial temperatures. Triggering these planetary shifts will not cause temperatures to spiral out of control in the coming centuries but will unleash dangerous and sweeping damage to people and nature that cannot be undone.
"Tipping points in the Earth system pose threats of a magnitude never faced by humanity," said Tim Lenton, from the University of Exeter's Global Systems Institute. "They can trigger devastating domino effects, including the loss of whole ecosystems and capacity to grow staple crops, with societal impacts including mass displacement, political instability and financial collapse." The tipping points at risk include the collapse of big ice sheets in Greenland and the West Antarctic, the widespread thawing of permafrost, the death of coral reefs in warm waters, and the collapse of one atmospheric current in the North Atlantic.
"Tipping points in the Earth system pose threats of a magnitude never faced by humanity," said Tim Lenton, from the University of Exeter's Global Systems Institute. "They can trigger devastating domino effects, including the loss of whole ecosystems and capacity to grow staple crops, with societal impacts including mass displacement, political instability and financial collapse." The tipping points at risk include the collapse of big ice sheets in Greenland and the West Antarctic, the widespread thawing of permafrost, the death of coral reefs in warm waters, and the collapse of one atmospheric current in the North Atlantic.
We were warned in 1912 (Score:5, Insightful)
This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.
This comment was traced to a 1911 article from Popular Mechanics [snopes.com] which used the same wording.
On top of which, Exxon knew at least as far back as 1977 [scientificamerican.com] the burning of fossil fuels would lead to climate change.
Not sure why we're surprised these predictions have come true.
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing, hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. I am sure you can find any number of people saying any number of things that turn out to be true. The trick is to know which one to listen to at the time....
Secondly, I don't think anyone is surprised to hear about global warming or climate change at this point in the game.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is surprised to hear about global warming or climate change at this point in the game.
Lucky you, I'm still regularly hearing from customers that can't stop themselves from telling us about how it's a chinese hoax to control us.
Re: We were warned in 1912 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://rhg.com/research/china... [rhg.com]
(Not sure how much of that is China's heavy industries making exports though, i.e. exported pollution from here and elsewhere).
Re: (Score:3)
No, you read your article too quickly: China's overall emùissions have recently overtaken OECD's. From the article:
"To date, China’s size has meant that its per capita emissions have remained considerably lower than those in the developed world."
Which means:
- a chinese human still emits a lot less than a human from the OECD (2-3x times less than the average american for instance)
- and half of this chinese human emissions are actually exported emissions when they make something for us
But it sure d
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a direct link
https://rhg.com/wp-content/upl... [rhg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oopsie, sorry for my previous comment. And thanks for fixing my mistake.
I do join you on your last sentence though: not sure how much of that is China's heavy industries making exports though, i.e. exported pollution from here and elsewhere.
In all fairness, and coming from someone who highly dislike China political regime, I do feel like they are the ones actually serious about trying to change: they are actually deploying more renewables than the rest of the world combined (in 2022) and are also deploying
Re: (Score:2)
I think our R&D on solar panels, and then China mass-producing them, is a good example of this. (Despite resulting in economic friction and import tariffs)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reasons it was disregarded was active campaigning by fossil fuel interests worried their profits would be affected.
Much like tobacco companies, they're run by sociopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A human being, not an abstraction, ordered a disinformation campaign so they could hurt people for profits.
A good person would refuse. The CEO, the board, the PR firms they hired - while I do not believe in supernatural things, the label of 'evil' applies to all of them.
Re: (Score:2)
AnOnyxMouseCoward misstated:
While the CEO has the power to shape the operations or the direction of the company, they're beholden to the Board of Directors who have for mission to maximize shareholder value, which is essentially profit at all cost.
That is simply not the case.
Milton Friedman and his wife Rose proposed that principle in their book Free to Choose: A Personal Statement [wikipedia.org], published in 1980. Their book, and the 10-part PBS documentary based on it, were enormously influential in the corporate management sector. Enough so, in fact, that it became the bible of the so-called Chicago School of economics (Friedman was an economics professor at the University of Chicago at the time), and its ideas have so permeated the
Re: (Score:3)
The theory was pretty solid by 1820. The measurements, proving the science correct, was solid by 1968.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, so hindsight started in 2020....and we're about at the end of 2023.
Sounds about right, it takes awhile for all that hindsight to "sink in" globally.
Re: (Score:2)
Growing up on the family farm we had this new thing called "satellite television" where there were 1000 channels running re-runs of popular TV shows from prior decades. I don't remember the channel it was on but my brothers and I would watch a lot of shows like In Search of... to kill time over summer between our time to do chores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There was one episode that stuck out in my mind because it sounded so horrible if it happened, and it wasn't the usual fare of extraterrestrials,
Re: (Score:3)
Not an Australian newspaper, but The Rodney and Otamatea Times and Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette.
Thats around Auckland - 'across the ditch' from Oz
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. My bad. No offense intended to the Kiwis.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the emissions numbers keep rising. Progressives and scientists are talking about the massive reductions we need, but we haven’t even stopped the increases. It’s like a social worker urging an addict to stop using but they’re using more and more fentanyl each week.
Face it- in terms of addre
Re: (Score:2)
So, we deal with it. I live pretty far north, and close to the largest body of freshwater on the planet. I’ll be fine.
Near Lake Baikal, eh? :) Not Tanganyika?
Ohhhh. You mean by *area*.
Re: (Score:2)
For evaporation leading to rain, surface area matters a lot. Though it probably matters more for people downwind that receive it back as precipitation. There's always irrigation as an option.
We knew thousands of years ago. (Score:2)
Not sure why we're surprised these predictions have come true.
The Disease of Greed has plagued mankind for literally thousands of years. And there is nothing surprising about how ignorant humans are about that disease. Nothing.
We deserve to become another layer of inexplicable artifacts buried in the sands of time. As our ancestors likely did.
Re: (Score:2)
If Gore had won, I'm guessing him and Tipper would have stayed married a bit longer....
But I don't see much difference other than that.
But, hey....he DID give us the "Internet"...so, you know...we got that!!
Re: (Score:2)
That said, the point that people don't automatically know that a theory is correct is indisputable.
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is that some of these inevitable tipping points haven't been reached within their respective systems. A melting ice sheet as a closed system would ignore the global air temperatures, but its own tipping point would be related to ground temperature warming due to sunlight not being reflected away. So even if all global warming was solved tomorrow, that melting ice sheet would not reverse course once its past its own tipping point.
Does MsMash read anything other than The Guardian? (Score:4, Insightful)
It feels like we get msmash posts from The Guardian constantly, and it's always the same "The world is ending" garbage.
Re: Does MsMash read anything other than The Guard (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm I just went over and glanced around, didn't see ANY news about the college football playoffs, or anything on the pro season.
If serious about football, I'd at least expect there to be some articles about the controversial (to some) decision to snub FSU from the college playoffs.
Re: Does MsMash read anything other than The Guar (Score:2)
New Slashdot subscription model needed (Score:2)
Does slashdot offer a subscription where I never have to read another sky-is-falling dupe sourced from the Guardian? I would definitely hit that. Forget about paying to block ads, what I really want is the ability to block idiots who only know how to beat one drum.
Global Cooling will kill us (Score:2)
until Global Warming overtook that.
It's about time (Score:2)
What makes us think that homo sapiens have a monopoly on the top spot in this planet's evolutionary hierarchy? Sixty five million years ago, an asteroid bumped most of the dinosaurs from that spot. Or we'd still be small rodents dodging T. Rex in the jungle. Now it's our turn to go and make room for the cockroaches.
It's nature's way. We should stop interfering with nature.
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5... no news here. (Score:4, Interesting)
None of this is new. Putting it all in one article won't change a single mind, nor will it alter behaviour or policy.
Much to my chagrin, I have become hopelessly fatalistic. The world's climate will do what it will do, and we'll have to sort out how to deal with it... or not.
It's possible - even likely - that if the catastrophes do materialize, humanity's answer will be to accept the losses. Look at history. We watch ecological disasters unfold in passive horror. Sometimes aid groups get involved... sometimes they don't. I watched the floods in Pakistan last year and didn't lift a finger.
If the worst reasonable predictions come true, mankind may take a population and lifestyle haircut - maybe one that happens at the neck.
My question? I'm 53 and well off, in an area unlikely to experience the worst of the effects. Can I run out the clock?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 62, well off, and in an area not likely to be affected (whatever that means).
If there is going to be a global climate collapse in the next 30 years, then that is already inevitable. That is a wink of an eye and there is nothing that can be done to avoid it.
Soylent Green (Score:2)
Soylent Green will be People, it seems.
elephant in the room (Score:2)
Nobody wants to talk about how we're dangerously close to environmental CO2 levels so low that we see massive plant die offs...
Re: (Score:2)
Have you suffered a head injury recently?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody wants to talk about how we're dangerously close to environmental CO2 levels so low that we see massive plant die offs...
That's because we are not, in fact, dangerously close to environmental CO2 levels so low that we see massive plant die offs, and we are moving farther away every year.
FIVE tipping points?!? (Score:2)
Does that mean FIVE skies are falling, or still only just one?
Heavens, that's terrible.
I get it's a problem... (Score:3)
But fuck I'm so tired of hearing about it every. single.day. I already drive a hybrid (can't afford an EV, no where to charge it either), have pretty low energy use for an American household (around 5-6kwh a day), eat mostly chicken instead of pork or beef and don't sit around spending money on consumer stuff much.
Furthermore, when I look at all my elected leaders and business folks, they all live lavish lifestyles with huge carbon foot prints while riding around in their private jets so they can meet up and talk about climate change (when they could do that shit over zoom!).
Nothing about our society is sustainable and no one that makes decisions is doing much of anything to put us in that direction, short of trying to move to green energy (with zero emphasis on reducing our usage or otherwise working in more overall sustainable living practices).
So excuse me if I just don't care anymore. I do what I do to save money which also coincides with reducing my overall carbon footprint. Being sustainable tends to be a more frugal lifestyle, which is the exact opposite of what our business leaders want. They want more consumption since that makes them more money.
We're doomed and no one in any position to do anything real about it actually truly cares. They just pay it lip service.
Re: I call BS (Score:2)
The 99% have been brainwashed and divided.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like slowly boiling a frog. Most people don't notice we are all in trouble, and many are in hostile denial of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. For a problem with a massive level of inertia, those behavioral defects are fatal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For me, it appears that it will only be potentially catastrophic, etc long after I'm dead and buried.
At that point, what do I care?
So, just going to enjoy my time I have left on earth as much as I possibly can.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Deep down you care, otherwise you wouldn't feel the urge to post so many comment saying "hey, look, I don't care, this is why I am doing what I am doing. Can you please acknowledge I don't care please?".
You are scared, and have no idea how to deal with it. I think you don't even realize it, so please understand that I am not blaming you.
You are one of the best case of cognitive dissonance [wikipedia.org] I have seen in the last few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Or he is posting because he is concerned that the "fixes" will ruin the ecomonimic world he lives in. Which is a valid concern when the first post on this story is attacking capitalism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
BINGO!!!
That and I have lived a good life so far in on this planet.
I worked hard and attained a level of lifestyle that I just am not willing to part with....especially with no perceived gain by me in any way for doing such....
Re:I call BS (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically you're an incredibly selfish person that doesn't give a damn about anyone else, including your own family and descendants.
Thanks for making that clear.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Too many of those and everything goes to shit.
Re: (Score:2)
--Jim Morrison
Re: (Score:2)
Meh.
For me, it appears that it will only be potentially catastrophic, etc long after I'm dead and buried.
At that point, what do I care?
So, just going to enjoy my time I have left on earth as much as I possibly can.
Let me guess, you are also actively opposing medical progress, for fear of actually living so long that you get affected? A ton of fun you have.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, no...if you can show me that I can live to be living a good live well over 100 years, I'll happily change my tune on the climate change thing.
Right now, I think my best bet is if the vampire thing is real and I could get bitten and live forever.
I do hope I can lose a bit of weight first, before that happens, so I won't spend eternity overweight like I am cu
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. For a problem with a massive level of inertia, those behavioral defects are fatal.
Meh. For me, it appears that it will only be potentially catastrophic, etc long after I'm dead and buried. At that point, what do I care?
Exactly. This is precisely the problem. Long term problems don't stimulate short-term solutions.
(It can also be seen as a case of the tragedy of the commons: actions of benefit to individuals ("I don't need to do anything") end up being detrimental to the community as a whole.)
Re: I call BS (Score:2)
"it appears that it will only be potentially catastrophic, etc long after I'm dead and buried."
Keep telling yourself that so you don't have to make any changes.
When it's too late for you everyone else will be too busy to tell you that they told you so, so you've got that going for you.
Re: (Score:2)
People couldn't even grasp COVID infection rates and that played out in a matter of weeks, not decades. Tangibility is unfortunately limited to "right now" and not much beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
We also need to figure out a target and it's not 1.5C cooler. That target will obviously lead to a war because how do we decide what's desert and what's farmland? Should Canada and Europe become glacial again? Should Afghanistan no longer be a dry climate? Should the Sa
Why oppose what nobody is proposing? [Re:I call BS (Score:2)
Here's a counter-point: what was the climate like when the earth was 1.5C cooler? A: At times, it snowed in June. I'm not talking Krakatoa, I'm talking years before Krakatoa. We need to manage cutting carbon carefully and not aggressively. [science.org]
Don't be idiotic. Reducing temperature 1.5C below 20th century levels would require not merely completely stopping all carbon dioxide emissions (as well as other greenhouse gas emissions), it would also require removing from the atmosphere the 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 that we've already put into the atmosphere, to start with, and cooling from there. Nobody has proposed to do this.
We also need to figure out a target and it's not 1.5C cooler.
Correct, but "1.5C cooler" is not anybody's target. The target is to avoid 1.5 degrees C of heating, not to put in place additio
Yes, we have effects [Re:I call BS] (Score:2)
Uh, we don't actually have control over the planet's temperature.
We do. Greenhouse gasses increase the average temperature of the planet, and we can control how much greenhouse gasses we put into the amosphere.
We don't, however, have much control over lowering the temperature.
So we can pick any random number we choose but don't have a dial to set it there. There's no thermostat.
Ah, I see you don't believe in human-generated gasses contribute to global warming. Why don't you just state more directly?
Re: (Score:3)
So you believe there is a global thermostat we can just set
The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere acts as a temperature control, if that's what you mean; yes,
and magically
a lot of people think science is magic. It isn't.
raise or lower the world's temperature at will
Raising temperature is straightforward: increasing carbon dioxide concentration has been shown to do that. Lowering temperature is difficult: it would require lowering carbon dioxide concentration, which is not easy.
to any arbitrary number we like.
Not "any arbitrary number". To values within the range achievable by the CO2 infrared forcing, yes.
Ah, I see you don't believe in human-generated gasses contribute to global warming. Why don't you just state more directly?
Got it. Why didn't you just say you believe in fairies and unicorn fart magic?
I have a reasonable understanding of
Re: (Score:2)
I call BS. If it was really an issue people would be attacking the 1% like their lives depended on it.
That reminds me of this cartoon: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GA... [twimg.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is people like you: People that do not understand how very solid the facts are and that think it is all just propaganda. For a lot of the 99% their lives depend on it and especially the lives of their children. But they are simply to thick and uneducated to understand that and the fatal thing about climate change is that dealing with it requires a lot of foresight. Most of the 99% do not have that either.
Hence, all you do is demonstrate why the human race does not have the maturity to deal with
Re: (Score:2)
Well they were (WTO protests, occupy wallstreet). Now, for purely organic and honest reasons the public seems to be desperately concerned with BLM and LGBTQTIA++; causes. Have you seen the Goldman pride parade float? they're so brave and progressive, it's hard to imagine the animosity and hatred directed at them just a few scant years ago.
We're being duped.
Re: (Score:2)
I call BS. If it was really an issue people would be attacking the 1% like their lives depended on it.
Be careful what you wish for. If you are posting on Slashdot then there is a high probability that you are part of the global 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Us people in the middle like our standard of living and don't want to be more like the third, er developing, world.
Apparently it is no longer considered polite to use "developing world", The politically correct term is "global south".
Re: (Score:2)
That seems highly directionist and problematic.
Who says that direction is "south" anyway? What if they self identify as some other direction or multiple directions or no direction at all?
Don't be a directionphobe.
Re: (Score:2)
Why moderate that down? I thought it was funny.
I find it odd that Slashdot allows people to comment or moderate, but not both. If people are to know how to improve their commentary then it would be helpful to know why something was moderated down. If the person or people responsible for down moderation are prevented, or at least discouraged, from commenting then there's a long learning process on what gets voted down and what does not to comprehend what is acceptable and what is not. It would be much ea
Re: (Score:2)
Except this means the people in the top 1% are individually responsible for nearly 10x the emissions of a single person in the middle AND they are responsible for designing the products that the middle buys and sells that create the emissions. Can't give the 1% any special credit for there only being 1/100 as many of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth. They should just down all those businesses that generate stuff everyone needs or wants and fire everyone.
Then the global economy can crash, we can all starve or die fighting over the resources still in warehouses and the survivors can rebuild from the apocalypse.
Lock n load, bro! Let's do it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, fossil fuel companies just extract the oil and burn it for the pleasure of it. Our lifestyle sure has nothing to do with it.
Keep living in denial sweetheart.
Re: I call BS (Score:2)
I liked Elon until "pedo guy".
I was never a huge fan.
Now I'm a huge detractor.
Where does that fit into your world view?
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit, I didn't get the memo when I got to the 1% mark. No one told me I needed to build a bunker and buy a small army and take control of the local church or the court!
Fuck! I'm doing it all wrong! All I did was stupidly retire, play video games, watch my favorite movies, travel a bit and read slashdot, where thankfully I learned from you how I am _supposed_ to be doing it!
Thank you, bro! I found my "Welcome to the 1%" introductory letter. I clicked through the url at the bottom to sign up for my
Billionaires [Re:I call BS] (Score:2)
Holy shit, I didn't get the memo when I got to the 1% mark. No one told me I needed to build a bunker and buy a small army and take control of the local church or the court! Fuck! I'm doing it all wrong!
As of 2019, the top 1% of household net worth in the U.S. starts at $11,099,166, and an individual would need to earn an average of $401,622 per year in order to join the top 1%. But, of course, the global 1% level is much lower.
Nevertheless, it's a good point; it's really the multi-billionaires that are the ones with bunkers and private armies. There are ten thousand millionaires for each billionaire. Billionaires are the top 0.00004 percent, not the top 1%
Re: (Score:3)
Well, capitalism promotes greed, not insight. That is not conductive to a species having a future.
Re: (Score:3)
I think a reasonable person would argue that greed is inherent in people (7 deadly sins) and that capitalism is a way of channeling that greed in a positive way.
Re: (Score:2)
You call that a "reasonable person"? Seriously?
Re:And yet capitalism... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is extreme greed inherent though? Or perhaps a sickness that infects some and is culturely passed on? Most people I know simply want enough stuff with perhaps a buffer rather then all stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
The people that do care are unwilling to make (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
false dichotomy
Re:Ignorance is why history will repeat itself. (Score:5, Insightful)
false dichotomy
Is it? The original claim was that "capitalism is the main cause of this problem" yet I seem to recall that the former Soviet Union did a shitload of environmental damage (and would continue doing so were it still extant) and that the People's Republic of China is the world's largest producer of the emissions at issue in this story (to the point where the growth of their emissions over the last two decades exceeds the total current day emissions of the US).
False dichotomy [Re:Ignorance is why history w...] (Score:5, Interesting)
false dichotomy
Is it?
Yes. The dichotomy is "there exist two and only two choices, capitalism or socialism, and no other possibilities exist."
This is a false dichotomy. There are many possibilities, not just two.
No "capitalism" these days is pure laissez-faire free-market unregulated capitalism. To what extent capitalism is modified makes a lot of difference.
Likewise, people mean so may different things by the word "socialism" that unless the word is made very explicit, it has little meaning. I even hear people calling Finland, one of the most enthusiasticly capitalist economies in the world, an example of socialism. And it is... by some definitions of socialism. Just not the strict economic definition of socialism
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People's Republic of China is the world's largest producer of the emissions at issue in this story
You mean that same People's Republic of China whom the Western capitalist businesses have shifted the majority of their manufacturing jobs to, which somehow happens to coincide with their increased pollution, in order to suppress Western wages while simultaneously securing higher corporate profits.
to the point where the growth of their emissions over the last two decades exceeds the total current day emissions of the US
You do realize you don't get to puff out your chest and gloat about how clean your room is after throwing all your trash into your sibling's room, right? Any parent worth a damn will see right through that shit,
Re:Ignorance is why history will repeat itself. (Score:4, Interesting)
To be fair, USA really just exported a lot of our emissions to China in the way of having them make all the stuff we buy. So instead of us making stuff in factories over here (and polluting), we've actually made the problem worse since they make the stuff over there then ship it back over here. The shipping it back over here is an entirely unnecessary step but because capitalism without properly regulations doesn't account for the externalities of environmental damage.
China also has something like 3x our population.
We are getting better but nothing about American is really sustainable. Neither our politicians nor our businesses push sustainability but instead push the opposite. They want us to have more children and buy more stuff while throwing the old stuff away instead of refurbishing or repairing it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct of course, and Zak3056 proves your point by explaining how China is the real problem here. The implication is that he thinks China is a Communist country which hasn't been true for at least 30 years.
He may even think that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic, the people have a voice, and it is a republic.
Re: (Score:2)
China and India consume over 5B tons of coal and growing per year. Neither is really capitalistic.
They are also building more nuclear power plants, likely because they know that air pollution from coal isn't good for them.
I'll hear claims that nuclear power costs too much. So much that air pollution and global warming is cheaper? I'll hear claims that nuclear power poses some threat to our safety. Is global warming a lesser risk to our safety and heath than nuclear power?
Then is the claim that we don't have enough time to build enough nuclear power plants to matter. Can we at least try? In 1960, gi
The cost [Re:And yet capitalism... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll hear claims that nuclear power costs too much. So much that air pollution and global warming is cheaper?
The high price of nuclear power is, at the moment, a barrier to commercial (that is, capitalist) entities building new plants. If we put a price on the negative effects of fossil fuel burning, that might lower the barrier. But at the moment, any time anybody suggests putting a price on the negative effects the result is a loud chorus of "that's a carbon tax! No new taxes!, and it gets killed.
The other alternatives are subsidies (which, being tax funded, also effectively are increased taxes), or the government directly building the plants (which gets cries of "the government should be competing against private companies!")
(Or, best case scenario, learn to make lower cost nuclear power plants.)
I'll hear claims that nuclear power poses some threat to our safety. Is global warming a lesser risk to our safety and heath than nuclear power?
The green movement is currently fragmented on this issue. There are indeed a number of people highly concerned about the climate that say "nuclear has problems, but climate problems are worse, we need nuclear power." e.g., https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03... [cnn.com]
...
This is effectively a solved problem.
No, it's not. Nuclear power still has real-world problems that can't be handwaved away. However, the good news is that these problems should be solvable. But saying "the problems are solvable" is not the same as "the problems are solved."
Re: (Score:2)
We've been on the verge of other catastrophic tipping points before. And we crossed those. And parts of the globe will become uninhabitable as a result.
These are new tipping points. And we'll likely cross those, too.
In fact, until it's far too late to do anything, nobody will want to do anything. And then they'll be screaming at scientists for not stopping them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, here is to hoping no-honor lying scum like you will be among the first casualties.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two tipping points per variable per strange attractive in the cimate's chaotic system. So probably several million. Each for something different.
If you're bored of hearing about them, don't cross them. It's very simple.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that catastrophic tipping point mostly failed. These are new tipping points.
We will continue to discover tipping points as long as necessary, and they'll all have the same solution: more taxes and energy poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not use much more energy-efficient 2020s technology?
That's asking the right question. In the 1750s, oil lamps were the primary source of non-solar illumination. 20 lumens for two hours for an ounce of oil. I'm not at all confident on the math here, but I think it's 130,000 BTUs per gallon for oil /128 ounces per gallon = ~1k BTUs =~ 0.3 kW/h for 2 hours = 0.15kW/h for 20 lumens
A tiny 2 Watt LED for an hour is 0.002 kW/h for 100 Lumens. 5x the light for 1/75th the power is awesome. We've doodled arou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Including Jim Hansen's famous 1989 "the West Side Highway in New York will be underwater by 2019" prediction, which would indicate a ten foot rise in sea level?
(hint: not even close)
Or the "Hockey Stick" graph? Which overstated warming by about FOUR TIMES the actual average?
Or "children won't know what snow is" by David Viner of East Anglia University?
Or Hansen (in 2008) claiming the Arctic would be ice-free in five to ten years?
(Another hint: not even close this time either - there more now, on average, th
Re: (Score:2)
The hockey stick graph actually underestimated. Do try to keep up.
Can you provide citations to unretracted peer-reviewed papers that make the claims you state? Newspaper journalism is not known for its accuracy, neither are personal Web pages or privately-publishes books. Either it was published in a peer-reviewed paper or it's not a scientific claim but a personal opinion.
Re: (Score:3)