Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More Bad News About Global Warming

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the the-worst-is-yet-to-come? dept.

Science 852

IZ Reloaded writes "A UK govt report says that greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts that previously thought. Greenhouse gases it says, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable. From BBC: The European Union has adopted a target of preventing a rise in global average temperature of more than two Celsius. That, according to the report, might be too high, with two degrees being enough to trigger melting of the Greenland ice sheet.... A rise of two Celsius, researchers conclude, will be enough to cause: * Decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world * Tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia * Large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification * Up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage * 97% loss of coral reefs * Total loss of summer Arctic sea ice causing extinction of the polar bear and the walrus * Spread of malaria in Africa and north America"

cancel ×

852 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"Hemos" "Zonk" "Taco" "Samzenpus".. (0, Flamebait)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597311)

What the Hell does this mean ? Are these retards so ashamed of their families that they hide under such stupid nicks ?

Re:"Hemos" "Zonk" "Taco" "Samzenpus".. (1)

ShaneThePain (929627) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597325)

are you telling me your name is really Adolf Hitroll?

Re:"Hemos" "Zonk" "Taco" "Samzenpus".. (1)

Elaarni (860004) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597355)

Did you really just Godwin this thread in 6 posts??!

Re:"Hemos" "Zonk" "Taco" "Samzenpus".. (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597328)

I suppose Mr and Mrs Hitroll are proud of their son as well.

Can't Hear You (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597315)

La La La La LA!!!!

Can't hear you! Not happening! No consensus!

Love,
George

[George W. Bush appears by kind co-operation of Exxon, Inc]

PARENT IS NOT FLAMEBAIT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597425)

Bush's original comments were flamebait. Is anyone denying that Bush has close ties to the oil industry?

Mod parent comment up and Mod bush down.

Re:Can't Hear You (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597537)

http://www.mos.org/cst/article/80/9.html [mos.org]

You search for more (though I know you won't since it doesn't paint GWBush as the source of all evil).

Something tells me that increased solar activity has more to do with global warming. But hey, let's destroy the world economy and probbaly the adversity that would spurn us to find fossil fuel replacements in the first place.

Re:Can't Hear You (5, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597566)

Something tells me that increased solar activity has more to do with global warming.
Something may well tell you that. But it isn't science.

I've heard worse (2, Funny)

EVil Lawyer (947367) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597318)

"Decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world * Tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia * Large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification * Up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage * 97% loss of coral reefs * Total loss of summer Arctic sea ice causing extinction of the polar bear and the walrus * Spread of malaria in Africa and north America"

Eh. Worse things could happen. I'm only half-joking. If they had to resort to "extinction of the polar bear and walrus" for a seven-item list of "what could happen if there's global warming," we're not in such bad shape.

Re:I've heard worse (5, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597333)

"If they had to resort to "extinction of the polar bear and walrus" for a seven-item list of "what could happen if there's global warming," we're not in such bad shape"

You moron. The extinction of large mammals is a pretty damn serious effect. Go off and play with your toys and leave the talking to the adults.

Please mod parent up... ntxt (1)

John Betonschaar (178617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597345)

ntxt

Re:I've heard worse (3, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597362)

Yet around here people are glad of the "nice weather." This time of year there should be some serious snow on the ground around here, not partially green grass. Sooner or later, we're all going to pay for the "nice weather."

Re:I've heard worse (4, Funny)

sehryan (412731) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597401)

No doubt. The penguin population would explode in such a situation. And believe me, the last thing this world needs is more penguins!

Re:I've heard worse (1)

slysithesuperspy (919764) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597512)

Maybe you could elaborate for us nonecologists? How is that in perspective with with the rest of the things in the list?

Re:I've heard worse (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597607)

Because genius , it'll mess up the ecology of the area they're
currently living in. Who knows what knock-on effects it may have.
Apart from which, any major extinction due to human effects is
bad in its own right, never mind what ecological effects it might
have.

Re:I've heard worse (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597615)

While I am concerned about global warming, there is NO chance of walrus and polar bears going extinct. They may be gone from the wild due literally to lose of environment, but they will not be extinct. My self, I would be wondering what side effects that will have. In addition, I would worry about the other effects. They will almost certainly lead to global war. Shoot, We went to war over Oil. What will we (and other nations such as Russia, Canada, northern Europe, and the southern south hemisphere) do to protect our resources of water and food? Keep in mind that two nation that will likely suffer big in all this, are China and India, and both are nuclear powers.

Re:I've heard worse (1)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597339)

yes, and if the sea level rises we'll just have a situation like the floods in New Orleans, and that mustn't have been so bad anyway since people were complaining about looting even though people steal from shops in normal times.

Re:I've heard worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597353)

that's only the tip of the (than non-existing) iceberg: warming of the sea will kill many of the fish. no big deal you say? ok..but what the hell will we eat?

Re:I've heard worse (5, Insightful)

sleekus_geekus (578751) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597367)

Perhaps the loss of Krill [wikipedia.org] is far more worrying, close to the bottom rung on many food chains (phytoplankton an algae are below them) many species rely directally and indirectally upon these tiny crustaceans. The lost of such an important species would be far reaching, and its effects would be felt in all the worlds oceans.

Re:I've heard worse (1)

bryan8m (863211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597400)

Ever heard of an ecosystem?

Yes Yes (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597319)

All those problems, but whats on the mind of most people here is - will it affect my WoW ping times?

Yes it will do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597601)

Ask this guy [joshuaink.com] about the problem. :)

Heat and technology it's a bad misture.

Sounds inevitable then (4, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597321)

Even with the best will in the world (and that is sorely lacking
from certain countries - and thats not just a pop at the US, I'm
talking china, australia, india etc) we can't suddenly all switch
to nuclear and wind/solar/wave power overnight. CO2 will continue
to be released and the temperature is likely to go over the 2C
rise this century. I suspect the writing is on the wall for a
large part of the next generation of people on this planet , and
possibly us too if we live long enough.

Well there you go (5, Insightful)

Unski (821437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597344)

It's inevitable, just what we were wanting to hear. Now we don't have to bother changing our ways, we can just sit back and wait for it, with a newly-invigorated sense of nihilism. If you were hesitating to buy that SUV you wanted, well, now, you may as well get it.

For a while I thought there would be the danger that we would have to do something....phew!

Re:Well there you go (4, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597358)

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything about it. But theres a
large percentage of both the general population and governments
who either don't get it or don't care and they won't change their
ways in time for it to make a difference. IMO. Perhaps I'm just
being pessimistic. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

Re:Sounds inevitable then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597352)

Bah; the solution is simple - just pass an environment tax on imports and exports from those countries who aren't changing their outputs...

That'd really screw the US (lack of) economy :-)

Wake up Americans (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597322)

Citizens of the US: It's time to make your government take actions to stop global warming. You, the US, are the biggest contributor to global warming. In spite of this fact, the US does nothing. Join the EU and the rest of the world. You have no right to damage the Earth! It's not yours.

Re:Wake up Americans (5, Funny)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597373)

"You have no right to damage the Earth! It's not yours."

[joke]

The hell it isn't. We paid for it.

[joke]

Re:Wake up Americans (5, Funny)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597580)

Oh no! You didn't close the [joke] tag properly! Everything you've said or typed since you wrote this post has been a joke!
  Close it quick!

Re:Wake up Americans (0)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597428)

Um ya, a lot of us know that.

Re:Wake up Americans (-1, Flamebait)

Azghoul (25786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597470)

Citizens of the rest of the world: Fuck off.
1. We're working on it, don't worry.
2. Don't forget who's been one of the leading nations in environmental science over the last few decades.
3. Let us know what you jokers plan to do about India and China.

Re:Wake up Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597535)

oh you mean the two countries that produce more carbon emmisions than us? oh wait they dont produce more carbon emmisions than us. hmm so maybe we should do something about that. Ahead in env sci? HA dont make me laugh, advancements in env. sci can be as stupid as 'lets tame the everglades thats the smart thing to do' to as smart as 'damn we fucked up the everglades lets fix it', how advanced we are in env sci depends on your point of view.Even if we are the most advanced nation when it comes to env. sci. it wont matter if we dont apply some of that science in usefull policies.
Oh you are working on it? let me know how that goes and good luck.

the only real solution was to stop immigration (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597480)

Fewer people equals less people using things that emit greenhouse gases. But the environmental movement in the US nixed that idea.

Re:Wake up Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597496)

Yah, I'll get right on that. First I'll write my congressman, who'll never see my letter. The assistant that *does* see it will go to the folder in file cabinet relating to the environmental stance of the congressman and'll stuff an envelope with my address on it. I'll get this letter in about 3 months. Start a protest? The democratic party to which about 200 million people belong can't even block the nomination of the judge who anchors a rope in a tug of war in favor of religious zelotry, and you expect some rabble rousers to influence an entire nation to twist our industry and infrastructure to meet the demands of a profit hitting protocol. You need to wake up and smell the tripe your typing.

By the way, we're not damaging Earth, it'll do just fine without us. The only things we're damaging are the things we need to survive. Once we're gone, a steady state will return and the two-headed lions will take they're seat at the top of the food chain.

Ta-ta chap-er-ino.

Re:Wake up Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597507)

Actually, that would be China. Better than 70% of their energy is gained by the burning of coal.

-- You can have my SUV when you pry it off of your cold dead run-your-assover-left-tire-marks-on-your-back corpse.

act now (2, Insightful)

matrem (806375) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597326)

Global warming is happening right now [bbc.co.uk] . Purely from an economic point of view, it would be both wiser and less costly if we apprehend the problem in the present and not postpone.

In other news.... (0, Troll)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597327)

....bush says in his State of Union address that Niger provided yellow cake to Iraq, so it too must be "democraticized" forcibly. ....another analyst resigns from bush admin and joins Chevron after being identified as a "watering down specialist" who watered down reports related to global warming. ....aw.. forget it. Its Monday evening, and am bootin' for Home.

End of the world is near! (-1, Flamebait)

caltman (861217) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597330)

Women and minorities hardest hit!

Typical liberal garbage.

Re:End of the world is near! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597395)

Don't you know better than to post anything that is not uber-liberal under your real nick? This is Slashdot, where uber-liberal groupthink is cool and anything else is anathema. There are many evil children here, some armed with mod points. They think liberalism is cool, so nuke anybody/thing that is uncool.

In future, use the AC option. It is cowardly, but it is survival.

Re:End of the world is near! (1)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597427)

In future, use the AC option. It is cowardly, but it is survival.

You would have to have a pretty fragile ego if you equate getting negative mod points with death...

Re:End of the world is near! (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597611)

Don't you know better than to post anything that is not uber-liberal under your real nick? This is Slashdot, where uber-liberal groupthink is cool and anything else is anathema.

Slashdot, liberal? Well, possibly, but not in the modern sense of the word. I read posts here and I find the consensus to be of a broadly right-wing anarchistic bent. Something approaching the world of Snow Crash seems to be the ideal here. Government, according to /. groupthink, should get the hell out of people's lives, and not interfere either by (a) overextending copyright terms, (b) taxing people beyond a bare minimum, (c) telling us what programs we can and cannot create, or (d) going off on hugely expensive and completely unnecessary wars.

Furthermore, what does the issue here have to do with any party-political agenda? This is a scientific issue, no more susceptible to political ideology than was genetics, and look where Lysenkoism led...

Re:End of the world is near! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597456)

Yeah! We don't need to argue the counterpoint by providing supporting evidence. We'll just call the other side liberals and leave it at that. Who needs scientific investigation, careful analysis of collected data or a theory based on that evidence? Every right-thinking person knows we're correct anyway!

If the "liberal garbage" is to claim the sky is falling, then the "conservative idiocy" is to stick your fingers in your ears and hope it all goes away.

so, (2, Funny)

scenestar (828656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597332)

How much more proof do we need before those that believe in "intelligent design" finally accpet the affects of global warming.

Re:so, (1, Flamebait)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597363)

the scary part is that some of them do believe in global warming but don't care - Jesus is about to turn up any day now and take them to Heaven, so who cares about the future of this planet?

this is what Bush means by "faith-based policies" as opposed to those heretic "evidence-based policies" of atheist scientists. if you're worried about global warming, peak oil etc. then you don't have enough belief in Jesus Christ Our Lord And Saviour.

Re:so, (0, Offtopic)

Cerberus7 (66071) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597528)

I had heard Bush was part of a cult-like political group that believes we can do whatever we want because Christ will come back before it's too late to save us all. Do you have a reference for this? Given your name, I can kinda guess where you stand on the issue. Anyhow, they're in for about as rude a surprise as the 9/11 hijackers.

Re:so, (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597577)

The annoying part about this is, that only atheists can be proven wrong.
If you are religious and believe in an afterlife, you are proven right if there is one. And you can mock all atheists and infidels. However if there isn't an afterlife, you will never know (you are dead after all) and us atheists can't make fun of you.
They run around believing all will be well and go to heaven and what not, and when they are dead they know nothing more. Us atheists on the other hand know there won't be a booming sound from the sky making it all right, but still suffer from those idiots who think there will be.
Lately, I am starting to believe that ignorance is bliss. Just to be a tinier bit stupider and walk around utterly unaware of pending doom (global warming, peak oil, american presidents, everyone wanting to have nukes, bird flu, astroids we can see coming and do nothing (yet) about, clean water supplies, etc).

Who's still denying it these days? (5, Interesting)

wing03 (654457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597334)

So, I hear republicans and big oil business folks still call this a theory.

We, north of that country, just barely (and fortunately) elected a government who feels the same way.

We're having a winter heat wave here in Southern Ontario while our summers have been bloody unbearable with bad air days...weeks, high humidity and high temperatures while massive flooding and totally untypical weather hits different parts of the world.

Exactly, what are these folks not seeing when it comes to denying global warming?

Re:Who's still denying it these days? (3, Insightful)

Soko (17987) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597365)

Exactly, what are these folks not seeing when it comes to denying global warming?

Dollar signs.

Well, the type of $ that keeps them supplied with power and influence. Once they figure out how to stay in power without the rest of us being dependant on fossil fuels, greenhouse gases will begin to not be a problem.

Soko

Re:Who's still denying it these days? (1)

Ulrich Hobelmann (861309) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597567)

Why, we don't need those $s. Inflation is reducing their value every day anyway.

Real power lies elsewhere (usually government these days).

Re:Who's still denying it these days? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597390)

> Exactly, what are these folks not seeing when it comes to denying global warming?

Because the data does not show that. Are you old enough to remember the discussion of this issue before it became so polarized and politicized? You didn't hear anyone talk about global warming. All of the talk was about global cooling since that's what the temperature data shows is happening. Many magazines, including Newsweek, Time, and National Geographic ran many stories about global cooling. When I taught sixth grade, our science textbook went into great detail about global cooling. I taught the concept of graphs from a set of huge (about 4' by 3') laminated posters I had that showed actual temperature data from North America and Antarctica that showed global cooling. The author of the study that the graphs were generated from was even on Johnny Carson.

Since then a group of scientists with an anti-business agenda have been pushing their agenda to try to hurt businesses. Think about the fact that scientists are talking about global cooling and political activists with no science background are the ones screaming about global warming.

Re:Who's still denying it these days? (0, Offtopic)

SammysIsland (705274) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597478)

The fact that your comment was modded down is upsetting. It just goes to show that the readers here are modding down unpoular views rather than off topic comments. This is typical left wing bahvior. I see it every day because I live near a college campus where this type of behavior is rampant.


Global warming is a scare tactic, and we shouldn't react so quickly when tactics such as this are used to sway our opinions.

The key issue is... (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597447)

that you have to hold the whole world liable for the fix. Kyoto did not do this and that invalidates it. The Western world countries have gone to great extents to clean up their environments, the US is nearly a whole different country in regards to the environment since the 70s. Places where pollution was obvious but ignored are now safe.

Blaming the issue of non-compliance on oil and republicans is just playing stupid politics. If anything it is the standard lame attempt to make it appear one has a valid point but in fact doesn't.

With both China and India gearing up their economies nothing we do in the West is going to have a measurable impact. China is coming up like the old Eastern Soviet states did, ramping up without regard for the environment or people around them. You want to find the worst abuses of the environment go look towards former Soviet states. Some of those were frightening. Going on a trip and being told to stay physically away from rivers is not a great way to encourage tourists to return.

We have NASA ice cores that show more wild swings in our temperatures and more extremes than we see now. We constantly get contradicting reports about the speed, effect, and even the cause of Global Warming. I fully expect within a month or two if not sooner to have another report laying the blame on some new man made source we "just noticed". Perhaps a report claiming even more dire issues or a faster occurence of them?

After a time it gets old. What sinks the Global Warming cause more than anything is that even the GW side cannot agree on all the causes let alone all its effect. The latest report/study/article always seems to be the one with issues most glom onto while they totally ignore past articles. Heaven forbid any article that attempts to refute any GW "theorey" as the writers will be villified. There is no allowance for the other side in this argument and that by itself damages the pro-GW side even more. People have to come to understand that when one side consistently paints the other with hostile terms, actions, and name calling that the side doing so isn't telling the whole truth.

Get the whole world involved or blame the whole world. Singling out the US gets very tiring. All the world done in the US and elsewhere over the last 30 years fixing the enviornment are going to be lost as long as China and the East are ignored.

Re:Who's still denying it these days? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597460)

Back in the 70's it was a definite scientific fact that we were suffering from Global Cooling. We were going to lose all those species from loss of habitat, loss of crops due to lack of heat, blah, blah, blah.

My, how short-sighted we get when the natural climatological changes of the planet fit in with our political goals.

Re:Who's still denying it these days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597494)

We're having a winter heat wave here in Southern Ontario while our summers have been bloody unbearable with bad air days...weeks, high humidity and high temperatures while massive flooding and weather hits different parts of the world.

And in other news Europe, is having one of its coldest winters in a long time. I'm sure all Canadians are decrying the mild winter too. Maybe you should move closer to the North Pole or to Siberia if you're having such a hard time dealing with the warmth.

Re:Who's still denying it these days? (3, Insightful)

Danathar (267989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597583)

Do yourself a favor and go read some studies on the history of climate change over the last 100,000 years (taken from ice samples). I don't argue that dumping stuff into the atmosphere is bad, but fluctuations in global climate is rather common. There have been times in the planet's past (within the last 100,000) years where the climate was MUCH warmer with much higher concentrations of C02.

It's laudable and and a worthy goal to reduce the crap being put into the atmosphere, but to attribute current climate conditions over the last 20 years or even 40 with human activity is more politics than science (there is SOME science but it's VERY anecdotal and inconclusive).

I am the walrus (-1, Offtopic)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597335)

Total loss of summer Arctic sea ice causing extinction of the polar bear and the walrus

I AM THE EGGMAN Ooh !
THEY ARE THE EGGMAN Ooh !
I AM THE WALRUS Ooh !

GOO GOO GOO JOOB! GOO GOO GOO BLEAUGHHH!!!!
*dies*

The sky, the sky! (3, Funny)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597348)

No, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. That's just rain falling on your head. Acid rain, maybe, but rain just the same.

Nice agenda Slashdot! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597350)

Since August 1989 I've worked as a programmer for a group of meteorologists and climatologists. Not a one of them talks about global warming. There was one that worked here for a while, but he did it more as a "hatred of the military-industrial complex" (to use his words) thing than as real science. We have some of the best and most extensive data anyone has, and global cooling is a fact. What is Slashdot's agenda? Why is there one pseudo-science article after another claiming global cooling does not exist and some that even claims the opposite. Whether the cooling trend is going to continue or now is still an item open for debate. Some of it is classified data from the US Navy from many more locations than you could ever hope to have land-based weather stations. Since most of the surface of the Earth is water, this is very interesting data.

To the anti-science political activists that keep screaming about global warming, why do you think scientists have been talking about global cooling for over 30 years? Why do you think global cooling was on the cover of Time long before people with an agenda made-up the concept of global warming? Let's just ignore the facts and blindly follow the pseudo-science fad of the week. Nice work Slashdot pushing this anti-science agenda.

Re:Nice agenda Slashdot! (1)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597408)

Since August 1989 I've worked as a programmer for a group of meteorologists and climatologists. Not a one of them talks about global warming. [...]
We have some of the best and most extensive data anyone has,


That is very interesting. It would be even more interesting if you could give a name of this group so the data would be up for verification, mr AC.

Why is there one pseudo-science article after another claiming global cooling does not exist and some that even claims the opposite. Whether the cooling trend is going to continue or now is still an item open for debate.

Are you perhaps confusing global dimming with global cooling? For a while scientists had problems reconciling global dimming and global warming, but these days it is pretty much accepted that polution caused the former (the dimming), and the former masked the latter (the warming).

Re:Nice agenda Slashdot! (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597411)

let me ask you 1 thing : what is the agenda of these global-warming activists ? Let me tell you : to ask people to behave more prudently. What is the agenda of the people ignoring global warming/cooling : filling their pockets with oil-money and weapon-money. So, it's not a question of who is right, but a question of : are we going to be egoistic or are we going to be prudent ?

Re:Nice agenda Slashdot! (4, Informative)

sleekus_geekus (578751) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597414)

I don't know where the hell your getting your "data" from but as a programmer with a physics degree I am able to pick up these supposed "pseudo" scientific journals (you many have heard of Nature for example) and understand not only the data presented but the scientific arguements surrounding the conclusions. 2005 was the hottest year since accurate records began so where the hell is the cooling?? Arguing whether global warming is actually happening or going to happen has long ended, however there is still a chance someone will believe the we're coming out of an ice age go about you business ploy.

Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597504)

> Re:Nice agenda Slashdot!

And we have yet more proof that the activists don't care about science or data. They only care about pushing their agenda. So, a post that talks about actual data is marked as a troll. Nice work Slashdot. The moderators here have shown their true colors again.

A good question is why are the political activists pushing their agenda so hard lately? Is it because the emperor has no clothes? They don't have science to back them up so they attempt to drown-out the discussion with their shrill hate.

Proud AC since Oct '98

Collate = hand pick (2, Interesting)

RacerZero (848545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597359)

"...collates evidence presented by scientists at a conference..." In other words Hand Picked without controlling for bias. Where is the link to the actual studies that were used? What was rejected? Looks like more media based science.

Re:Collate = hand pick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597385)

Very good point.

Obviously, we hope that the science was reasonably impartial given the involvement of the UK Met Office and the government.

They wouldn't have too much of a reason to make the dossier dodgy, would they?

Some government-sponsored sensationalism, anyone? (5, Insightful)

Woldry (928749) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597403)

Er ... if you read TFA closely, the report doesn't actually say what the headline seems to imply -- i.e., that greenhouse gases have been demonstrated to be more effective in causing global warming than previously thought. It says that the effects of global warming have been modeled to be more drastic than previously thought.

This is a subtle but vitally important distinction that the writers of the article themselves don't seem to grasp. To quote from TFA:

But Miles Allen, a lecturer on atmospheric physics at Oxford University, said assessing a "safe level" of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was "a bit like asking a doctor what's a safe number of cigarettes to smoke per day".

"There isn't one but at the same time people do smoke and live until they're 90," he told Today.

"It's one of those difficult areas where we're talking about changing degrees of risk rather than a very definite number after which we can say with absolute certainty that certain things will happen."


Given that CO2 is naturally found in the atmosphere, and was so long before humanity came on the scene, and is essential for the continuation of plant life on this planet, Allen's comparison of it to an external disease-causing agent is a very odd statement.

I'm waiting to see a study on global warming that actually takes into account the fact that we are still coming out of the last ice age (or out of the Little Ice Age); that the planet (and our species) has survived far more drastic climate change in the past; and that such climate change had nothing to do with human action. When those facts (and they are facts) are taken into account, how much actual evidence is there that the current climate change is due to human causes? Is there any at all?

I don't intend this as a troll. Seriously, if anyone can link to studies that take those facts into account, I'd very much like to read them.

Re:Some government-sponsored sensationalism, anyon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597522)

Did you read "State of Fear" by Michael Chrichton?

Re:Some government-sponsored sensationalism, anyon (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597565)

try RealClimate.org [realclimate.org] and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [www.ipcc.ch] (IPCC).

I've read all the papers (a few in summary form only) from the conference on which this report is based. The BBC report accurately reflects what I have read.
 

Re:Some government-sponsored sensationalism, anyon (4, Insightful)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597608)

The question is not whether or not the Earth will survive. It is whether or not my future grandchildren will survive. It is not whether or not life will continue, it is whether or not our lives will continue. It's not a question of whether or not global warming causes are natural or not. It's whether we can do anything about it.

We need to act now (3, Insightful)

sheepcentral (914661) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597410)

This is why we need to act now. Even if we don't do much and we only reduce the our CO2 emissions by an extra 1% (for illustrative purposes not actual figure) by doing easy things like turning our TVs off at the wall rather than putting them on standby, walking to places near our houses, not leaving our computers on all day while we are not at home etc. Then at least we will be giving our selves more of a chance to sort out this mess.

I am angry that countries like America, Austraila and China will not sign up to the Kyoto treaty as they are some of the largest contributers to CO2 emissions, and the other parts of the world that are doing thier bit to reduce emissions are then getting short changed because the good that they are doing is being made almost pointless because places like America are still polluting lots and the whole world will suffer not just America. The world is a "team game" we need to work together on this one. America (and the others) should stop thinking about thier oil centric economies and think about the future of our planet.

I am also irritated and scared that the American electorate keeps voting Bush in, he really is a moron, how can the American people trust such an idiot to run thier country. It would be much better to bring Clinton back in my view.

Re:We need to act now (1)

Woldry (928749) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597431)

easy things like turning our TVs off at the wall rather than putting them on standby

I'll start doing this when I am able to buy an affordable model that doesn't require me to reprogram all the bloody channels and settings every time the thing gets unpowered.

Badly known facts (3, Informative)

matrem (806375) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597536)

China signed AND ratified the Kyoto protocol.
The US signed the Kyoto protocol, but did not ratify it.
Australia signed nor ratified the Kyoto protocol.

Say that to Russians... (4, Informative)

WetCat (558132) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597415)

In Russia we are having one of the COLDEST winters in history!
It looks here that not a global warming, but a global permafrost is coming!
we experienced -15 F here! and some experienced -20!

Re:Say that to Russians... (1)

Zebadias (861722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597458)

In Russia Global warming cools you!

Oh nevermind.

Re:Say that to Russians... (2, Informative)

arivanov (12034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597619)

First of all it is not even close to being as cold as 1978. It was -47 in Moscow on New Years eve that winter.

Second, the last several summers have been the hottest on record as well with record numbers of forest fires, etc.

If the current model for global warming is to be believed the gulfstream should weaken which will lead to continentalisation of the climate in Europe. Colder winters and hotter summers. So far it more or less matches the picture. In fact it is expected to get worse. In the worst case scenario ahref=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/32 66833.stmrel=url2html-28816 [slashdot.org] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2 /hi/science/nature/3266833.stm> the north sea is expected to start to freeze every winter with average winter temperatures in Northern Europe plummeting to sub -25.

"Tripling of poor harvests" (3, Insightful)

Woldry (928749) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597416)

What exactly is "tripling of poor harvests"?

We'll have poor harvests that are three times as big as previous poor harvests? We'll have poor harvests three times as often as we do now? We'll have harvests that yield only one-third as much as we do now? Or something else?

And how is "poor harvests" defined?

Re:"Tripling of poor harvests" (2, Informative)

cozzano (666947) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597596)

If 1 in 9 harvests are currently poor - that number will triple to 1 in 3. Is that not obvious or are you just trying to nit-pick? How a poor harvest is defined however - that is an interesting question.

Reversing global warming? (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597418)

Is it even possible to reverse global warming? If every bad emission was to stop today all of a sudden, would it take hundreds of years to start having an effect?

Hopefully, something can be done to slow or stop its progress. I don't see the world stopping all its emissions suddenly, maybe people will have to directly see its negative impact for them to start caring/thinking about this problem.

Out of fossil fuels? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597421)

From what I've read about peak oil, and the latest news about Kuwaits reserves, I can't see how this will be a problem. Surely we don't have 1000 years worth of fossil fuels to burn?

Re:Out of fossil fuels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597505)

There is plenty of coal left and lots of tar sands and oil shales, the danger is that shortage of oil and gas will lead to substitution by coal and heavy oils. These all produce much more CO2 for the same energy content, especially when production and disposal of waste (fly-ash, etc.) is taken into account.

Unsustainable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597422)

Greenhouse gases [...] is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable

Well, if the rate of warming is "unsustainable", global warming will slow down soon. Isn't that good news???

Some scenarios considered by Pentagon (1)

ljubom (147499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597440)

There is an article in The Observer about some scenarios considered by Pentagon. One (?) of the scenarios deals with some dramatic changes in very short time scala:
      http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,1153513,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

Re:Some scenarios considered by Pentagon (1)

ljubom (147499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597485)

There is an article in The Observer about some scenarios considered by Pentagon. One (?) of the scenarios deals with some dramatic changes in very short time scala:

            http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,1153513,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

See also greenpeace report:

            http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/world -bank-pentagon-warn-cli [greenpeace.org]

Global Cooling is more of a concern to me... (1)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597446)

I'm in the very small minority who believe that global cooling is the more likely possibility in the near future; warming won't continue much longer.

So relax and enjoy the warmth while it lasts ...

I know I will be today with temperatures over 20F above normal with the high temp expected to be around 60F in the Reading, Pennsylvania area :)

Ron

Re:Global Cooling is more of a concern to me... (4, Insightful)

eht (8912) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597490)

I'm still out on what's happening, but it seems as is some of these people believe the earth has never been warmer than it was last week. Where are the predictions that we'll once again have huge grape vineyards in England like we did 500 years ago but don't now because it is too cold?

Re:Global Cooling is more of a concern to me... (1)

StudlyDego73 (885492) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597519)

So relax and enjoy the warmth while it lasts ... I know I will be today with temperatures over 20F above normal with the high temp expected to be around 60F in the Reading, Pennsylvania area :)

I hear ya! I'll be basking in the warmth up near Scranton, PA today...though I did have a nasty run-in with an icy road on top of Montage Mntn. coming to work today...

yeah yeah... the bear and blah blah (1)

layer3switch (783864) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597451)

What about that water shortage? So the ice is melting, yet, we are going to have water shortage? Someone care to explain that phenomenon?

---
Don't let the fools fool you. They are the clever ones."

Re:yeah yeah... the bear and blah blah (0, Flamebait)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597609)

Easy. Commence impression:
Ohmygod this is bad because ohmygod greenhouse gases! and also because the heat and the icecaps will drown us ohmygod! and then the heat and all the water evaporating ohmygod! We're all going to die and IT'S ALL $FOO's FAULT ohmygod!
This is the sort of hysterical train of thought required to believe some of the crap that gets said about climate change. Several points of view on both sides of the argument are self-contradictory to the point of religiousness.

What a fragile planet we live in (1)

null etc. (524767) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597469)

Seems like we're lucky to be alive, considering how a 2 degree climate difference will mean the end of the world.

Conspiracy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597497)

Haven't you read Mickael Crichton's "State of Fear"?
Global warming is only a huge conspiracy...

By the way, Mickael, where are the dinosaurs?

Preperation Beyond Environmentalism (3, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597517)

I really wish that we would search for solutions outside of prevention. Breaks are nice, but if they fail, I would like a seatbelt, an air bag, a crumple zone, and a roll cage. The simple fact of the matter is that I honestly don't think that the world has the will to slow its green house gas output.

The US is not going to relocate its populace into central locations and build a massive public transport project. China (or any other developing nation for the matter) is not going to tell 1.3 billion people that are always on the verge of a violent revolution to come out of poverty slowly so that they don't dump green house gases with their inefficient industries. Hell, even the modest targets set up by Kyoto are going to be a struggle for most nations to reach. Simply put, the world is addicted and the addiction isn't going to stop. If the threat truly is sever and looming, hitting the breaks as hard as we can muster is a nice first step, but it sure as hell shouldn't be the last.

Billions of people are coming out of poverty and starting to really consume for the first time. These people simply well not accept being told they can't live like the people in first world nations do. Older first world nations like the US are already built on an infrastructure that is both physical and political that precludes massive societal alterations to truly reduce green house gas output. Even the EU has limits as to how far they can cut back. Combine these factors and it is pretty clear we can't back peddle. We can slow and delay which are good first steps, but with 3-4 billion or so people coming out of poverty, that is about all we can do.

I think we need a three fold strategy.

First, we need to delay. Reducing output and gathering climate data is something that has already been initiated. This is a trend that needs to continue in so much as far is possible, but it can't be the only thing that is done.

Second, we need alternative technologies to that can maintain our standard of living while reducing emissions. Perhaps more importantly, we need to have these technologies in place such that they can be transferred to rising third world nations. 1.3 billion Chinese can not live like Europeans, much less Americans, and have the same inefficiency that they suffer with now. Fusion, fissions, clean coal technology, hybrids, all of these things are steps in the right direction.

Third, we should seriously consider the possibility that the first two steps are not going to work and seriously consider methods to terraform Earth to maintain the status quo, or at least to blunt serious and dramatic changes. If we can say with some level of certainty that our climate models are good enough to link humans to global warming and foresee serious consequences in the future, we need to take those same models and predict ways to offset those changes. I find it hard to believe that we have enough power to warm the planet, yet lack the power to cool it. If this really is a grave concern, money should start being funneled into global climate control now. An international treaty organization should begin hammering out the framework for altering the global weather in a manner that is agreeable to as many as possible.

In my opinion, it isn't enough to simply demand the insane and expect 3-4 billion poor to rise out of poverty, but do it such that they do it without creating a global impact. The wave is coming. If we truly have convinced ourselves that it is upon us, we need to recognize the fact that 3-4 billion people going through an industrial revolution is messy at best, and prepare in ways that recognize that environmentalism alone isn't enough to stop what is coming.

Scapegoating (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597520)

This sounds more like scapegoating to me. "It's not our European socialist policies or corrupt third-world dictators that are causing poor crop output, it's those evil Americans causing global warming! Be mad at them, and keep voting for us!"

Sort of like the 50+ consecutive 'bad growing seasons' the Soviet Union experienced...

Global Warming is a hoax (-1, Troll)

dbmasters (796248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597521)

It's all BS, the environment runs in cycles, the earth warms over a few decades, ice melts, storms grow in intensity and frequency, it's the whole life cycle, then it will start on it's way down again...

Just a great excuse for envirnmentalists to have something to bitch about to raise money so they don't have to take showers and go get real jobs like the rest of us and actually contribute to society...

kyoto ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597553)

or in other words the cuts suggested during the kyoto summit is not all that much useful ? it would lead to economic downturns but will not cause any significant improvements to the environment ????
 
  oh..and the third world/devoloping nations that fought for and got a break for thier polluting setups are going to get it bad ?

Political Implications (3, Interesting)

oldCoder (172195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597554)

People care more about these long term issues when they're young. And they care more about them if they have lots of kids. I'm well into middle age without kids and find that these sorts of issues just don't move me the way they did when I was 20.

The US population is aging and having fewer kids. The European population is aging even faster and having even fewer kids. Except that the European Arabs are young and having lots of kids. Mix it all together and let me know if you figure it out...

Reply (4, Interesting)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597571)

"Theres lots of studies and they all say different things, so we're going to listen to the one which makes us the most profit".

I'm not sure if I feel sorry for these people or myself. These people will be dead in 30-40 years so not see the worse of it, I on the other hand have another 50-60 if I keep myself in a good condition. If the current models are correct I should exprience quite extreme weather by the time I get old enough for a brisk cold to be quite risky for my heatlh..

Profit comes before damage if you're not going to live to see the damage it's self.

NOT Global Warming THINK Oxygen Depletion (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14597593)

As the CO2 is increasing, the O2 is decreasing.

So when it gets 4 to 7 degrees C warmer, and Florida and many islands vanish,
that's bad - but what do we do without oxygen?

The bigger problem with fossil fuels is they are competition, not just a tool.
It might be a good idea to stop using technology that kills of all the microorganisms,
photoplankton, and trees and plants that produce the free oxygen we need to survive,
or homo sapien will be the next endangered species.

SpaceBalls wasn't a joke - it was a prophecy.

So DO something about it (5, Interesting)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597605)

Here in New York (USA), the energy sector has been decentralized, so we can choose our suppliers for electricity. I've chosen one that is entirely based on wind and hydro power. Sure, it costs me an extra $10-$20/month, but it is one small thing that _I_ can do.

We keep looking to governments to impose a change on us, but what are we doing about it for ourselves?

Faith in Science rather than Society (1)

ma11achy (150206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14597616)

In my opinion, this is an area that we may have to put our faith in science to develop fixes for society's mis-management of the environment.

Rather than wait for governments to agree on how much they should
reduce energy consuption (and possible reduce economic output) - which
could be a long wait...it may be better to invest more time/money/resources
into think tanks on developing future technologies capabable of reversing
the effects on our planet. IANAES (I Am Not An Environmental Scientist), but one possible
theory is nanotech devices that target constituent molecules of GHG's and convert
them to less harmful (or beneficial) elements?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>