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!

Climate Change To Drive Weather Disasters, Say UN Experts

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the things-people-will-get-mad-about dept.

Earth 572

mdsolar writes "Climate change is amplifying risks from drought, floods, storms and rising seas, threatening all countries, but small island states, poor nations and arid regions in particular, UN experts warned on Tuesday. In its first-ever report on the question, the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said man-made global-warming gases are already affecting some types of extreme weather. And, despite gaps in knowledge, weather events once deemed a freak are likely to become more frequent or more vicious, inflicting a potentially high toll in deaths, economic damage and misery, it said."

cancel ×

572 comments

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

Yeah yeah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521423)

When they say "climate change" it's code for "bullshit excuse for more regulations, taxes, and you feeling guilty for being Homo sapiens sapiens."

Can we take the political clout away from the self-haters yet?

Re:Yeah yeah (1, Funny)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521489)

Or you could get your head out of your ass and learn something.

Re:Yeah yeah (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521607)

There is nothing to learn from pseudo-science. This isn't the "Law of Man Made Global Climate Change" ... it’s a theory at best. Having some politicians claim that it is anything more than theory-status just adds fuel to the fire and makes real scientists that accept the idea that ANY THEORY can be wrong not want to get involved. Instead you have a field of activist-scientists on both sides that are just trying to confirm their bias instead of using the accepted method to support or disprove the theory.

Re:Yeah yeah (2, Insightful)

gabereiser (1662967) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521673)

I wonder how the worlds scientists who are all in consensus about the fact that climate change exists and it's causing weather patterns to be unpredictable would respond to your comment. It was fact long before it became political fodder to be poked and prodded and written off as pseudo-science...

Re:Yeah yeah (4, Interesting)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521757)

I wonder how the worlds scientists who are all in consensus about the fact that climate change exists and it's causing weather patterns to be unpredictable

Is there consensus on that second part? What is your source? Because that is not what is said on the first page of the report the IPCC just released.

Re:Yeah yeah (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521927)

Open your mind, and learn the difference between climate and weather. Note that it isn't the IPWC. It's the IPCC. Big difference.

Re:Yeah yeah (5, Informative)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521999)

Huh, IPWC.... I'm looking at the IPCC report this slashdot article is about, right now. It does not sound anything like "consensus". It sounds like properly nuanced presentation of their analysis. This is not what you will read in the news:

There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including
increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led
to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence
that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is
likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in
mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical
mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide
only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic
influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging.

Re:Yeah yeah (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522075)

Or, in plain english: "Climate is changing, we screwed it up, now we're going to get more flooding. Not sure about the cyclones though."

Re:Yeah yeah (4, Informative)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522129)

Do you know what "likely" refers to when used by the IPCC? What about "medium confidence", etc? If not, are you qualified to interpret their statements? Please at least skim the report that millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours have produced for you. First, go to page 21.

Re:Yeah yeah (5, Insightful)

donleyp (745680) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521783)

You are playing fast-and-loose with the words "all" and "fact", which seems to be the standard mode of operation for left-wing nutjobs. The facts are: 1. We have a lot of evidence suggesting that climate change is happening. 2. We have some evidence that human pollution has caused some of the symptoms of climate change. 3. We also know for a fact that the overall climate of the earth has changed and fluctuated to extremes without the help of humans, in FACT, before humans even existed.

Re:Yeah yeah (0, Flamebait)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521911)

You are painting a painfully simple version of the field of climate science, missing out on practically all the actual science and just summarising the findings in a hideously-childish fashion, one presumes for some sort of critique which never really manifested...

Re:Yeah yeah (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522013)

Erm... how much more than a summary would you expect in a single post on slashdot?

I have no real opinion on it all, but was there some part of what he said that you actually disagreed with?

Re:Yeah yeah (2)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521965)

2. We have some evidence that human pollution has caused some of the symptoms of climate change

We have controvertible proof, and there was consensus on that in the 1979 NAS report. Fixed that for you.

Re:Yeah yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522115)

And the "world scientists" who are all in consensus that disagree? Are they just thrown to the sidelines because of political reasons? or just because you personally don't agree?

It's a theory at best ... most of it is still theoretical. If "world scientists" are drawing hard line conclusions from that then they are really bad scientists.

Re:Yeah yeah (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522123)

Climate has changed before - those with the brains to adapt survive, those dinosaurs who can't will die off. Climate change drives evolution.
I, for one, welcome our new carboniferous [wikipedia.org] age.

Re:Yeah yeah (3, Funny)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521723)

That's like an obese person who eats junk food all day, and says his diabetes has nothing to do with his diet!

Re:Yeah yeah (3, Insightful)

indeterminator (1829904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521959)

That's like an obese person who eats junk food all day, and says his diabetes has nothing to do with his diet!

But you can't prove that it's the diet that is causing the diabetes. Might as well be lack of excercise, or too much wanking, or whatever. Correlation != causation and so on.

That said, if I was fat and started to develop a type 2 diabetes, I would fix my diet, just in case.

Re:Yeah yeah (1)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522081)

Genius, the true cause of climate change: "Too much wanking". That's something the republican party could get behind.

Re:Yeah yeah (3, Informative)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521803)

it's a theory

You keep using that word. [wikipedia.org] It doesn't mean what you think^W suppose it means. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yeah yeah (3, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521871)

Wow. You really got screwed over by your school system. This isn't pseudoscience, this is the real deal. And just because you seem to not understand the words the scientific community uses to describe the validity of a hypothesis and the evidence supporting it doesn't make it any less real.

Re:Yeah yeah (2)

Leebert (1694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522049)

it’s a theory at best.

So is relativity, but your GPS wouldn't work if it didn't compensate for relativistic effects.

(Not that I am in any way defending or condemning AGW. I just hate seeing misuse of terms.)

Re:Yeah yeah (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522001)

Because the call to action is called after the Scientist makes an Hypothesis not when they make the conclusion.
How many laws are put on the table before these is strong evidence. Banning chemicals in plastic without conclusive evidence that it is causing health problems. Cellphone regulations because someone who is a Scientist says that Cell phones may cause cancer.

The problem isn't as much the Scientist but the Psuto-Scientist who did OK in their High School science class. Who take everything from a Scientist as fact, vs. Asking for their data, and checking it out. And wants to be the guy who said I told you so, if something was actually harmful.

Re:Yeah yeah (1)

Wild_dog! (98536) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521493)

Nice start AC. Let the food fight begin!!!
woot. ;-P

Re:Yeah yeah (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521617)

You only have to feel guilty if you're a *white* Homo sapiens sapiens. Everyone else can be proud!

Re:Yeah yeah (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521637)

more regulations, taxes

Think of the billionaires' children!

Re:Yeah yeah (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521897)

more regulations, taxes

Think of the billionaires' children!

Don't you worry! Those kids will be just fine. I fear, however, for the children of those that work for the billionaires.

Re:Yeah yeah (1, Insightful)

EkalbG (872803) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521781)

Don't waste any effort having a conversation with AC and his/her ilk. They won't believe anything that is in conflict with their world view. Their motto must be ignorance is bliss!

Re:Yeah yeah (4, Insightful)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522011)

Don't waste any effort having a conversation with AC and his/her ilk. They won't believe anything that is in conflict with their world view. Their motto must be ignorance is bliss!

I'm having trouble telling you two apart.

~Loyal

Re:Yeah yeah (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521997)

Care to share the secret where you want to go once this planet became inhabitable? I wanna come with... no scratch that, I don't want to share a planet with someone like you.

oxymoron (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521497)

Isn't "UN Experts" an oxymoron?

Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (0, Troll)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521517)

Can't wait for all the AC right-winger and libertarians to pile in -- who will rail against the science because they disagree with the policy implications of climate change.

Funny how the Right love science when it produces weapons to bomb brown people, or enriches multinational corporations. But go NUTS if it means that their rich friends endure more regulation.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (4, Funny)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521585)

You read 596 pages already?

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (1)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521643)

Seriously though I predict 500+ comments despite no one reading the thing they are talking about. That is just today. The number of comments by people who have not read the report will number in the billions a couple years from now.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (0)

pbscoop (2606071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521629)

Funny, you made this political preemptively, without provocation. It came off a little defensive considering you're so confident in the science. P.S. It's 2012, I thought I was supposed to be underwater by now?

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (5, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521639)

I am socially and fiscally conservative. I believe in states' rights. The data about what exactly is happening to our climate is muddy. The outcomes are unknown. There is a lot of politics behind it.

But what we are doing to the environment cannot be good. We need to do something about it. Add a $5/gal tax to gasoline and use the money to develop public transporation and bicycling infrastructure. Bar new fossil fuel plants. Build offshore wind farms, the Kennedys be damed. Add tarrifs to good from countries that are not cutting emissions. Invest in next-generation nuclear reactor development. Ban cars from city centers. Stop giving tax rebates to people buying hybrids - give tax rebates to people buying bicycles, train tickets, and bus tickets. Stop building cities around cars.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (0)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522067)

Got a second Earth in your pocket in case you're wrong? If not, I admire your guts.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (3, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521641)

Too late. They pounced while your weren't looking, and got FP to boot. Idiots... They're the first one to dismiss "global warming" when it snows hard in their town, while totally missing the real story - it's snowing harder because of global warming. Extremes in weather are the predictable outcome of more energy in the environment. To be sure, one storm, does not a trend make, but the observed events are pretty much following the model. "Damn those scientists! Let's just cover our eyes and ears and mutter to ourselves..."

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (2)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521689)

Extremes in weather are the predictable outcome of more energy in the environment.

On the face of it this makes sense, but what are you basing that on? I mean is it that there is more energy, or just a changing amount of energy?

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (1)

Stickybombs (1805046) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522137)

If the temperature is going up, on average, there would be more energy by definition. Heat is energy. If the average temperature weren't going up, it wouldn't be global warming.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (2, Interesting)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521769)

This country cares for the planet like their diet. They deny any bad doing till it's too late, and then look for other excuses as to why it happend.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522087)

But who are we going to sue once we get the bill for our idiocy?

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (2)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521649)

Predictions with little to no ability to falsify them don't exactly qualify as "science." "In a system with a lot of variability to begin with, CO2 is going to increase the risk of variability."

Ok, maybe at one level it's science. Pointing out that the prediction doesn't have much predictive value isn't "railing against science."

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (1, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521721)

Not all good scientific theories and models are falsifiable.

Take high-energy physics: the Standard Model predicts the existence of the Higgs boson. However, 'proof' is statistical. When we can only ever say that something exists with statistical certainty (e.g. 6.5 sigmas), then it's going to be tough, if not impossible to falsify.

Doesn't mean that that theory is useless in describing the world. What makes a theory good, is its ability (or lack thereof), to explain observations about the real world.

FWIW, conservatives who say things like "evolution is only a theory", all need a good hard punch in the head. Because it displays an obscene lack of understanding of how the world works.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (4, Informative)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521843)

Uhhh, yeah, they are. If a theory is non-falsifiable, it isn't science. Evolution is highly falsifiable. AGW isn't. Sorry, but that's the way it is. The change is so small that it falls within the noise of natural variability of both weather (fluctuations in water vapor content have hundreds of times as much effect on atmospheric heat retention as all the CO2 ever produced by man), and climate (we don't really understand long term climate, or what caused past climate changes). We don't even have a single control (whereas we have practiaclly unlimited controls and unlimited samples to show that evolution happens, and the ability to read paste changes in the genetic code, which are predictive, etc etc).

Also, ad hominem is a logical fallacy. If you want to find the actual truth, rather than descending into political squabbling, you would do well to avoid it.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (-1, Flamebait)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522019)

Oh, fantastic, another home-schooled armchair physicist.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (2)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521873)

Right, but (assuming proper experiments and analysis is performed) what level of "statistical certainty" should be required before science is used to inform public policy? The answer lies somewhere between 0 and 6.5 sigma. In a nutshell, this is what the argument is about.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (1)

jhcurtis (840746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521951)

Even the most religious farmers understand that evolution is a fact. What they dispute is the creation event. Clarity in you statements is critical for your arguments to have weight and be persuasive. Debate 101.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522093)

I'm curious. The proponents of (formerly global warming) climate change all say that disasters (drought, floods, storms, rising seas) are on the horizon if temperatures change. But that implies the recent temperature average is a minimum for disasters. If we'll have more disasters if the temperature increases or decreases, what an amazing coincidence that right now all of history, even pre-history, we should be at the disaster minimum.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (1, Troll)

blippo (158203) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521691)

Perhaps.

The undeniable fact is that it's wars, dictators, poverty, tribalism, illiteracy and low education that is amplifying the impact of weather extremes.

Somehow, we are trying to fix that with a fight against a carbon dioxide chimera.

It's almost like it's a symbolic sacrifice - a token of our will, but it will not stop people from dying in countries far away.
We can't use up our natural reserves in this way, but the acute problem is to stop people from dying today.

The long term solution is to fight for democracy, fight for education, and fight against (christian and islamic) fundamentalism.

This will keep our children from dying.

Then, in 20 years, we can start thinking about solar panels, etc...

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (1)

jhcurtis (840746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522047)

"and fight against (christian and islamic) fundamentalism." What war has been started by Christian fundamentalists in the past 50 years? Every war religion based war that am aware of was started by Islamic peoples. Please enlighten me how a fight against Christianity helps the world? As a second point, do you live in America? If so, how do you resolve the inherent conflict of your desire to fight against religion and the Constitutional right to be free to practice that religion without government interference?

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521919)

Climate change is just more of the same old government, creating a problem and "fixing" it with tax dollars. They will "fix" climate change the same way they cured poverty with welfare, teen pregnancy with sex education, and crime with a crap-load of feel-good platitudes rather than locking up the criminal and throwing away the key. I personally hate to see more of my tax money throw at a perceived problem without any viable, working plan by a government with such a dismal record of waste and fraud.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (4, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521967)

I'm pretty sure no one thinks the idea of pumping shit-tons of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a GOOD thing. It's not a question of whether we should do something about this, it's a question of how to most rationally balance our economic interests and our long-term environmental interests. The problem is that reason has become a scarce commodity in both sides of the debate at this point. The increasingly shrill alarmism of the left and the head-in-the-sand denialism of the right are making for the kind of emotionally-charged debate that's making it damn near impossible to chart a clear path that's going to keep the planet from warming too much while also not creating an economic disaster worse than the environmental one.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521971)

Do you "agree" with climate change because you think the science is sound or because it is in political alignment with your wishful thinking? Do you think talking down to people that don't agree with the politics of this science makes you right? Better?

The only people that should have strong feelings on "climate change" are people that study it for a living. The rest of us should have open minds either way. Science evolves. It isn't "right" or "wrong" it simply is. When you find yourself swinging science reports around like a political weapon you are doing far more damage to society than any pollution will.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522027)

The party of "tolerance" strikes again I see. Tolerant as long as you think EXACTLY the way you do.

Did you happen to catch this little item the other day. I wouldn't be surprised if you missed it, since it doesn't fit in well with the "consensus" and all. http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/03/23/antarctica-new-evidence-medieval-warm-period-and-little-ice-age-were-global/

Amazing what we don't know, but you seem to have all the answers. But more importantly, you don't seem to question those who have proven time and time again that they are willing to make up the answers/hide the decline.

Re:Conservative meltdown in 5..4..3..2..1.. (2, Insightful)

Tokolosh (1256448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522065)

Disclaimer: I am a libertarian.

Global warming has been studied so carefully, scientifically and so thoroughly by so many, that I don't think that it can be denied. At least in the geological short term. The amount and speed of warming can still be debated.

However, the response to this warming insight seems to be based entirely on emotional, non-scientific and non-economic grounds. The "cure" seems to be mostly based on reversing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas alternatives or simply adapting to changed conditions are dismissed.

The King Canute's should see this as an opportunity, not a threat. Let's see the same intellectual engagement in the response to global warming as there has been to climate change itself.

It's more than just global warming gas (3, Insightful)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521521)

There is 7 BILLION people on this planet, and nearly 1/3 of the forest has been cut down in the last century. With all the polution humans cause, and millions roads that we built, how can anyone dispute our involvement in climate change?

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521551)

There is 7 BILLION people on this planet, and nearly 1/3 of the forest has been cut down in the last century. With all the polution humans cause, and millions roads that we built, how can anyone dispute our involvement in climate change?

The same way a certain kind of person disputes any other fact that has implications they don't like.

Or that their leaders don't like, and tell them that they shouldn't like either.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (0)

starsky51 (959750) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521621)

How about the 5 nonillion (5 x 10^30) bacteria that are all farting out "global warming gas"? I'm actually coming round to the human contribution to global warming idea, but saying "7 billion is a big number" doesn't persuade me.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521797)

Lifting your leg and farting is the first step in dismissal.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (0, Troll)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521631)

I can dispute it.

It takes 1 acre of forest or 2 acres of grass to sequester the gas produced by 1 American adult. It takes 1/8th acre to produce the vegetables needed to feed a family of 4.

So, what is the global population density and how many acres are there per person in the world? 10 acres per man, woman, and child on the planet!

That means that an average American family would have 45 acres (2 adults and 2.5 children on average) and only need a max of 4 acres to sequester the carbon they produce.

That is just the land mass and it is 1/3 of the planet and the other 2/3rds can sequester carbon as well due to plankton content.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521693)

You forgot about all the Live Stock! Billions of Live Stock, Cows, Chickens, Pigs, etc. They produce large amounts of methane, so how do you figure them into your calculation? Also, don't forget to add the Land Fills accross the globe.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521741)

You're glossing over the matter of a lot of the world's acreage being non-arable land (there's a not insignificant portion of Alaska for example which isn't sequestering much carbon being snow and ice covered much of the year (remember that bit about the six month long winter night?), and the whole state is going to be giving off a _lot_ of carbon and methane if the permafrost melts), or the problem of the growing season being significantly less than the year-round production needed for 1/8th of an acre to feed a family, or the matter of wanting to rotate crops and leave the land fallow one year out of 4 (or 7, depending on one's traditions and livestock and crops).

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (0)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521879)

He also glossed over the worlds largest carbon sink, the ocean. I'd say that more than evens it out.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (3, Informative)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521989)

There's a problem w/ the ocean as carbon sink isn't there? It becomes more acidic and shellfish have their shells dissolved by the acidic water, while problem species like jellyfish flourish, no?

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (-1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521883)

Fine, break it down further there are 2 acres of arable land per person. However, arable land is land that can be farmed There is plenty of Forest, swamp land, and areas that are non-arable but still sequester carbon.

However, if you want to be fair to the numbers there are 1285 acres water per person on the planet and plankton sequesters more carbon that grass.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (2)

Kidbro (80868) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521925)

Your numbers are both wrong and misleading.

Let's start with wrong:
There is about 5[0] acres of land mass per human alive today. Roughly 30% of this is forests (much less is arable), leaving slightly less than 2 acres per individual to "sequester the gas produced", rather than the 10 you imply.
This is the result of a very trivial google and wikipedia search - I have not even looked at the facts behind the "1 acre of forest needed for 1 adult" number - I hope it too isn't removed by a factor of five from reality.

Now over to misleading:
How much land it takes to produce the amount of vegetables needed to feed a family is irrelevant, as vegans are a minority. Far more interesting is how much is needed to produce the cattle needed to feed same family. Is the extra greenhouse gasses produced by unnecessary animal diet even included in your 1 acre/person number above?

[0] Surface area: 148,940,000 km2, which is ~= 36,800,000,000 acres, diveded by 7,000,000,000 people leaves roughly 5 acres per person.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (0, Redundant)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521659)

I don't know... Perhaps because the science on both sides has been so manipulated, exaggerated and falsified that critical thinkers don't trust it at face value? No one with half a brain says we did not cause any change. The question is did we cause "this" (for many different versions of "this") change? And will doing "this" specific thing fix it? There are still a lot of unknowns here, and acting without all the facts can be dangerous. After all, MTBE was initially "required" to "protect" the environment. Now it is outlawed for the same reason...

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521957)

[citation needed]

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522021)

Saying "both sides do it" is the mark of someone who is not thinking critically. One side has peer reviewed research and a strong consensus while the other has manipulation through the media by people who are not bound by the same standards. This creates a distortion that is inevitably repeated by people like Anon-Admin who think in a few short sentences they can dispute decades of research.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521683)

The same way that many of the "high and mighty" UN climate people changed data they received to make it sound worse then what we really are.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9071908/Melting-glaciers-on-the-Himalayas-not-contributing-to-sea-level-rise.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/20/times-atlas-incorrect-greenland

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521763)

This just goes to my point that people have no place in science that can't accept that a theory may be wrong. "Global Warming" was renamed "Global Climate Change" for political reasons and the statistic of "1/3 of the forests being cut down" is a political point and not a scientific point since it ignores replanting. Was there a net loss of trees? Yes, but it isn't 33% ... not even close. In fact there are more trees in North America now then there was 100 years ago.

Is the human species involved in so-called "climate change" ... most likely, but to what degree is something that isn't politically correct to investigate. In fact, this whole debate has become so politically charged that true scientists that accept the idea that a theory can be wrong don't even want to touch the issue. Instead you have activist scientists and politicians doing pseudo-science to prove their bias.

The whole thing is disgusting.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521901)

If you're doctor says there is a good chance you'll get a hart attack if you continue with your current diet, do you ignore it because you need more proof?

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (4, Insightful)

Programmer_In_Traini (566499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521817)

I agree, but to play devil's advocate i would reply:

in pretty much the same way people can actually defend creationism vs evolution. in spite of all the scientifical artifacts, findings and proofs pointing toward one direction.

men will find deeply defend what they think must be true, despite all evidences.

Re:It's more than just global warming gas (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521877)

those things mostly just affect local weather. take your meds and settle down.

Look at the bright side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521523)

Climate scientists sprout when it's getting warmer, so it's not only gloom&doom.

lesbien's (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521529)

commyanist faget's wants to take my hummor and make me eat vegitabel's! WAAAGH!

Re:lesbien's (-1, Offtopic)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521533)

You win the internets

More, less, anything is caused by AGW (5, Insightful)

zerosomething (1353609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521563)

You can find studies that show more hurricanes, less hurricanes, more sever hurricanes all due to global warming. It's getting old attributing every possible outcome to Advance Global Warming. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html [nationalgeographic.com] http://www.science20.com/news/global_warming_may_mean_fewer_hurricanes [science20.com] http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2009/0109-global_warming_causes_severe_storms.htm [sciencedaily.com]

Re:More, less, anything is caused by AGW (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521591)

I hope that comment was a joke, and that you really aren't that ignorant of this topic...

Re:More, less, anything is caused by AGW (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521857)

Stupid little troll Dave. Wasting his company's time spouting off about something he knows nothing about other than what he reads on Slashdot.

Really, this topic should be banned from Slashdot because 99.9999% of the people commenting know exactly shit about it. It's like sitting next to a bunch of winos in the park as they expound on the complexities of pigeons.

Re:More, less, anything is caused by AGW (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521909)

Ignorance is pointing out the fact that mutually exclusive outcomes are mutually exclusive, and that any theory that contains such predictions has major problems?

The world needs more ignorance of that caliber!

Re:More, less, anything is caused by AGW (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521685)

Just ignore all the reports that do not agree with %myfacts% and you will be OK. (And be ready to be modded to oblivion... Sigh)

That Last Link Does Not Mean Hurricane (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521939)

You can find studies that show more hurricanes, less hurricanes, more sever hurricanes all due to global warming. It's getting old attributing every possible outcome to Advance Global Warming. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html [nationalgeographic.com] http://www.science20.com/news/global_warming_may_mean_fewer_hurricanes [science20.com] http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2009/0109-global_warming_causes_severe_storms.htm [sciencedaily.com]

You do realize that a hurricane and a "severe storm" are rather different things, right? Your last Science Daily citation is about severe storms, not hurricanes. It never even uses the word "hurricane" nor does it indicate that it's talking about storms that only affect coastlines. A thunderstorm and a hurricane are two very different events. Are you going to complain that global warming reports are in direct conflict over precipitation figures and then link to stories about increased monsoon seasons and decreased snow fall?

From the "fact sheet" (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521579)

—It is likely that the average maximum wind speed of tropical cyclones (also known as typhoons or
hurricanes) will increase throughout the coming century, although possibly not in every ocean basin.
However it is also likely—in other words there is a 66 per cent to 100 per cent probability—that overall
there will be either a decrease or essentially no change in the number of tropical cyclones.

Ok, so.. Less hurricanes, but about a 50% chance wind speed might increase (by how much? 1mph? 2? 30? 5000000?)

I just hate how they take the conclusion "the same number of hurricanes, or less" and yet still spin it into a scary prediction, by leading it with a "the wind might blow harder". I guess that truth needed a little bit of PR work to make it convenient.

It also predicts larger economic damages due to weather. Well, no duh. We're building more and more expensive stuff. The weather could stay the same and this will be true.

Missing is any mention of anthropogenic CC, CO2, or anything like that. So yeah, it's pretty safe to predict the climate will change with 100% confidence, if you don't tag it with that.

Re:From the "fact sheet" (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521695)

It also predicts larger economic damages due to weather. Well, no duh. We're building more and more expensive stuff. The weather could stay the same and this will be true.

Not just more stuff, but in more places. It is a lot harder for the storm to rip through empty fields now as we are filling them with homes.

Re:From the "fact sheet" (3, Informative)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521855)

I just hate how they take the conclusion "the same number of hurricanes, or less" and yet still spin it into a scary prediction, by leading it with a "the wind might blow harder".

Use your common sense. Hurricanes are routine events. We have them every single year, and the majority don't cause much damage. It's the most extreme hurricanes that cause damage, so it's the frequency of those extreme hurricanes that matters.

Guess it is time to pull out my... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521603)

... blueprints for a sustainable underground city as functional as a surface city!
And while I am at it, Bond villain lairs for all the rich types.

Actually, screw it, where is the space cannon? Earth is screwed.
I'm moving to Mars. I hear the local population are quite nice.

Nobel winning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521613)

Isn't that the prize Boo Boo won for doing basically nothing at all?

Re:Nobel winning? (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521791)

On paper, yes. In reality that was the rest of the world expressing relief that the US hadn't elected another Republican president.

Re:Nobel winning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521941)

For some work on something that he worked on with a senator from the other party that votes in a precinct where he doesn't have a domicile.

State of Fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39521787)

'nuff said

The UN is definitely an expert.... (2, Funny)

clonehappy (655530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521793)

They've been perpetuating disasters since 1945!

there is now consensus (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521979)

There is now consensus that it sucks to be poor, to live on small island states and arid regions.

Some change should become take place when richer countries start getting hit more regularly.

Translation : Give us money (0, Troll)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39521983)

More doom and gloom. Doom and Gloom.

There will always be climate change. The problem being, each agency seems to have its own criteria for determining what constitutes an issue, what contributes to the issue, and what examples there exist of the problem.

Sorry, but I come to realize anything coming out of the UN requires increased scrutiny. Just look at the wording, they refuse still to be locked down. They have learned their lesson after the fear mongering following spectacular events like Katrina. Words like "likely", "hard to gauge", "extreme", and more.

Its a FUD festival.

Yes there is climate change. Is that bad? Depends on where you are and what change you experience. We do know it has been hotter before. We certainly cannot know the types of rain storms across major portions of this world much over a hundred years ago, let alone hurricane/typhoon frequency simply because no had the ability to find them all.

Still it makes great press. It gives people who an agenda leverage. Most important it allows some groups to extort money from others while ignoring those groups who would tell them to bugger off.

So... (2)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522029)

If and when the next natural disaster happens, how will we know if it is spawned by climate change, or if it is something that would have happened anyway? How do meteorologists make that determination? I seriously would like to know.

My view as a skeptic (-1)

Necroman (61604) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522089)

I completely believe the data that these scientists have collected. I also believe that they have done their work right. I believe in their findings and their predictions about how the climate will be changing in the coming years.

What I don't believe is why they thing this change his happening. The climate of our planet is pretty complicated, and I know I don't understand or all the variables involved. I'm sure the guys that worked on this study have a good understanding of it, but we only have data for maybe a few hundred years if we're lucky? The earth has been around a long time and I'd expected it would go through changes as it goes through its very long life.

My other issue with climate study is that it's used as a political weapon. Politicians wield the results to push their own agendas. With this, it seems like results from studies could be skewed.

People are wising up... (-1)

rayvd (155635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522091)

We've seen the things blamed on "Climate Change" shift from hotter temperatures, to *cooler temperatures* (as things cooled or didn't warm very much the last decade) to animals doing weird stuff we don't think they would normally do, etc., etc.

Next, weather disasters -- which have been a constant on this planet forever will now be blamed on climate change.

And guaranteed if there aren't as many weather disasters (since those are driven by an extremely complex system of which we only understand a tiny bit about) as there "should be" the depression of weather disasters will be blamed on climate change as well.

(Actually this happens with their yearly hurricane season predictions already).

The good part is that people are really wising up to this stuff. The bad part is the alarmists are still getting money.

Gays caused global warming! (0)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522133)

At least, that's what the right-wingers are gonna say when their home states get inundated by successive and increasingly bad tornado seasons.

A related campaign was launched yesterday (2)

antiapathy (2516456) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522135)

The folks behind some enormous word-wide climate rallies, 350.org, just launched a campaign to connect the dots between weather anomalies and climate: http://www.climatedots.org/ [climatedots.org]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?