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!

Global Warming On Pace For 4 Degrees: World Bank Worried

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 439

iONiUM writes "From the article: 'Over the years at the U.N. climate talks, the goal has been to keep future global warming below 2C. But as those talks have faltered, emissions have kept rising, and that 2C goal is now looking increasingly out of reach. Lately, the conversation has shifted toward how to deal with 3C of warming. Or 4C. Or potentially more." Overall it seems that poorer, less developed nations will be largely impacted negatively, while some countries (like Canada and Russia) will actually experience benefits. Where does that leave the rest of the 1st world countries?"

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

I save money! (4, Funny)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 2 years ago | (#42031313)

Nice I get to turn my thermostat down.

I get ocean front property! (4, Insightful)

cultiv8 (1660093) | about 2 years ago | (#42031523)

one of the benefits of living in a red state.

I get ocean property! (0)

skade88 (1750548) | about 2 years ago | (#42031795)

My house would BE in the ocean at that point.

Re:I get ocean property! (0)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42032007)

That is exactly his point.

Quick... (5, Funny)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#42031317)

Let's invade Canada before it becomes a super power in the new "warmer" world.

Re:Quick... (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#42031413)

25 years from now, barring amazing new desalinization technologies, Canada's water rights will be one of the biggest international policy debates in the United States. I really really want to read this post and laugh at what an idiot I was in 2037, but I think water will be a big problem soon. Imagine 2012's Midwestern drought 5 years in a row to get where I'm coming from.

Re:Quick... (4, Informative)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#42031461)

the midwest had a drought for years in the 80's. I remember farm aid.

its a wet/dry cycle that lasts a few decades and alternates

Re:Quick... (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42031719)

Unless something comes along and fucks with that cycle. Like, say, global climate change.

People used to joke about Canada becoming the 51st state. Maybe, in fifty years, they'll joke about the United States becoming the 11th province.

Re:Quick... (2, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#42031749)

Sure, cause I always trust Investment Wankers for unparalleled, unbiased insight into science.

Hows the carbon market these days?

Re:Quick... (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42031777)

Why should I care about bankers. I pay attention to what scientists say.

Look, even the Koch's are giving up the ghost. Time to face reality. The universe doesn't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and doesn't donate money to the Heartland Institute, and it most certainly doesn't give one sweet fuck about you, I, our economic ideologies or political ideologies.

Re:Quick... (-1, Flamebait)

Krojack (575051) | about 2 years ago | (#42031935)

Why should I care about bankers. I pay attention to what scientists say.

Because scientists are ALWAYS correct. Hell we have hard enough time predicting the weather beyond 5 days in the future. What leads me to trust these predictions 50 years from now? One thing you will never hear these scientists say is, "We predict the Earth will warm but honestly we just don't know, it could end up getting cooler."

Just keepin' it real.

Re:Quick... (4, Insightful)

EvolutionInAction (2623513) | about 2 years ago | (#42032041)

Keep in mind that broad strokes are normally easier than specifics. "It'll rain tomorrow" is a lot harder than "The average temperature for the month of October is X degrees C."
Science is almost never 100% correct, but it is always approaching. And lets be honest, it's the only way to make predictions of the future that are right more often than not.

Re:Quick... (5, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | about 2 years ago | (#42032043)

Because scientists are ALWAYS correct. Hell we have hard enough time predicting the weather beyond 5 days in the future. What leads me to trust these predictions 50 years from now?

As an analogy, think of a snow globe. Shake it up so all the pieces are swirling around. Can you predict the exact path that will be taken by each of those pieces? Not easily. Can you predict with confidence that after, say, five minutes, they will all be sitting on the bottom of the snow globe? Yes. Your inability to predict phenomenon A at timescale X has nothing to do with your ability to predict phenomenon B at timescale Y. Every time I here such an argument I can't help but think it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Re:Quick... (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42032045)

Weather is not climate. You're not keeping it real, you're posting a fallacious argument (fallacy of equivalence by the looks of it) and then ending them with "Just keepin' it real."

Re:Quick... (0, Troll)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#42032049)

You pay attention to what *some* scientists say. Follow the money.

Re:Quick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031947)

Ok its manifest destiny then and or Gods judgement on America.

Re:Quick... (4, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#42031725)

So, your post prompted me to research the history of Midwestern droughts in the United States, and I have to admit, there's a lot of history there. Suffice it to say, the data suggest that 2012 is only a little worse in terms of total dryness than 1988, and another shift of the same degree over the NEXT 25 years would only be slightly worse.

Still, climate change is an accelerating process, and it could still be that bad. There are other factors like dwindling aquifers and increasing industrial usage of water involved too, but I think all that might not actually add up to enough to overcome Americans' lack of interest in boring, important things like water rights. I should have reviewed that information first, so I apologize for jumping on that scenario.

Re:Quick... (1)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#42032061)

That's what happens when you remove all the trees. Stop it.

Re:Quick... (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#42031767)

Look into reverse osmosis. Water shortages aren't making headlines like global warming because we have ways to get fresh water out of the ocean if we get that desperate.

Re:Quick... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031831)

Look into reverse osmosis. Water shortages aren't making headlines like global warming because we have ways to get fresh water out of the ocean if we get that desperate.

Not a lot of ocean here in Oklahoma.

Re:Quick... (5, Funny)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 2 years ago | (#42031901)

yet...

Re:Quick... (3, Interesting)

Krojack (575051) | about 2 years ago | (#42032083)

we have ways to get fresh water out of the ocean if we get that desperate.

Which we already do. Only problem is, it requires a massive amount if energy to do. It's prohibitively expensive, especially when compared to tapping regional and local sources of freshwater. Kinda like those electric cars out there. Everyone would love to have one but not when they can get an internal combustion engine for 1/2 or even 1/4 the cost.

Re:Quick... (3, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#42031925)

25 years from now, barring amazing new desalinization technologies, Canada's water rights will be one of the biggest international policy debates in the United States. I really really want to read this post and laugh at what an idiot I was in 2037, but I think water will be a big problem soon. Imagine 2012's Midwestern drought 5 years in a row to get where I'm coming from.

Twelve years ago I told a businessman I was dealing with oil wasn't the concern in the future, it would be water rights that caused wars. You'd be surprised at some of the corporations buying up water rights. Just imagine if fracking destroys a lot of the in ground supply and drought decreases the surface water how much those rights will be worth?

Re:Quick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032117)

They are not worried about destroying the water supplies. They need millions of gallons of it. They are not particularly picky if it is 'clean' or not. It is in such high demand for the frackers they truck it in.

Re:Quick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031977)

Canada's water rights will be one of the biggest international policy debates in the United States. I really really want to read this post and laugh at what an idiot I was in 2037

One of the biggest, right after 32-bit time_t overflows.

Re:Quick... (0, Flamebait)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#42031433)

I thought I'd heard the other day on the radio, that the world had actually seemed to have stopped warming a few years ago, and had been actually holding steady on average?

Re:Quick... (0, Troll)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 2 years ago | (#42031615)

Did you hear that on Rush Limbaugh? Because it isn't true. The last several years or so have EACH been the hottest year on record up until that point.

Re:Quick... (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#42031849)

You've overstepped into hyperbole. They just have repeatedly landed themselves into the top 10 hottest, and one of them(2008 was it?) was a number 11. Be careful, because the people you're disagreeing with will seize upon the fact that you're wrong as complete invalidation of anything you're saying.

Re:Quick... (2)

mofolotopo (458966) | about 2 years ago | (#42031727)

Please reevaluate your news sources.

Beat me to it! Bring democracy to Canada. (0)

echtertyp (1094605) | about 2 years ago | (#42031695)

Yep, I can see it now, U.S. Marines "bringing democracy to Canada" for their own good. Nothing to do with resources. Nothing at all.

Re:Quick... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031873)

As a Canadian, let me help you out. Just go after Quebec. The rest of Canada will be glad to be rid of it, and you still get a fair stretch to the North.

On a note related to the topic, it'd be nice to have more than the bottom few hundred kilometers to do something with. We have an absolute crapton of space that's essentially unuseable except as permafrost-filled tundra. I'm sure over time more people would be willing to move to Canada if a) our winters even right at the US/Canada border weren't horrendously cold, and b) you'd be able to set up farmland or towns or anything else further North than being within a few hours of the border.

Because seriously, I've spoken to a lot of people either the year they moved to Canada, or within several years. Usually from somewhere that's never seen a snowflake. When asked about their experience in Canada thus far, without a doubt the first thing they'll say is that the first winter they saw, they 1) thought they were going to die from the cold, even indoors, and usually say they didn't step outdoors for several months until necessity forced them to, 2) that Canada looked absolutely filthy (if they arrived in spring, with all the dirty road slush, brown dirt/grass, sand and salt from the roads over everywhere, etc), and 3) that walking on ice is essentially 100% impossible for the first few months, until you get used to it.

It's kinda funny, since after a few years they'll be laughing about what they thought during their first move... but all of them were at first utterly amazed that people not only go OUT when it's that cold, but continue their lives like normal! And generally, all of them describe it such that they *literally* thought their bodies would shut down and die, even at -10, never mind when it hits -40 or lower (celcius of course, although -40 is the same either way). They are inevitably amazed that the human body can keep *not dying* at that temperature, and they very quickly learn how to dress, and eventually how to walk without falling.

Tragedy of the commons (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#42031343)

No individual nation benefits from moving to fix this alone. International diplomacy operates at the kindergarten argument level by virtue of no leader wanting to appear as though they're screwing over their populace for people of another nation.

Imagine getting a room full of five year olds with toys to sit quietly for an hour, even if the promise is candy for everyone. That's what climate change negotiations are like.

Re:Tragedy of the commons (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031481)

Yet many special interests benefit from bullshit that the World Bank and other propagandists promote.

Don't worry, global warming is a fraud (4, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#42031365)

Now let me go get my canoe; need to be at the office soon.

Re:Don't worry, global warming is a fraud (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#42031705)

You mean like these guys [youtube.com] ?

Re:Don't worry, global warming is a fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032033)

Oh hey, a fellow Manitoban!

Note: I'm only partially being funny. During spring flooding, there's a number of towns that *literally* have no access for a number of weeks except by boat. And there indeed are people who would have canoes or motor boats to go from the front of their house (most houses built in the past few decades will be built on a hill to avoid completely being flooded out if the water goes higher than the dyke around town) to their work or store or whatever.

The temps go higher, time-frame lower every year (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031371)

1 degree over the next 100 years, 2 degrees over the next fifty years, 4 degrees over the next 25 years. Next year some "scientists" will probably be calling for a 10 degree rise within the next 10 years. Every year, I hear something that sounds less-and-less like hard science coming out of these "scientists" and more-and-more of something that sounds more akin to millennialist religious fanatics proclaiming the end of days.

Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.

Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea (4, Funny)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#42031539)

http://xkcd.com/605/ [xkcd.com]

This morning at 8AM, the temperature was 54 degrees F. The temperature at 3PM is 75 degrees F. Scientists predict that by next week, the Earth's surface will turn to magma.

Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea (0, Flamebait)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#42031811)

So you're saying you're inclined to disregard all claims of danger without examining the reasons behind them? Or does that only apply to the thought that the world you grew up in may one day change?

Re:The temps go higher, time-frame lower every yea (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032057)

Every year, I hear something that sounds less-and-less like hard science coming out of these "scientists" and more-and-more of something that sounds more akin to millennialist religious fanatics proclaiming the end of days.

That's how science works.

Once consensus is reached, nobody is allowed to question it on pain of being branded a heretic.

As nations we are all fucked (0)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#42031375)

Overall it seems that poorer, less developed nations will be largely impacted negatively, while some countries (like Canada and Russia) will actually experience benefits. Where does that leave the rest of the 1st world countries?"

With all the religion and what not I guess that (less developed) mean the US is fucked.

With most people in the 1st world countries under debt (=poor (no, not really, only if the debt is larger than the value of their property)) they to are fucked.

I guess the rich can always get away from it somehow. Likely not all consequences. Worst case scenario their wealth is also destroyed and hence they do become fucked :D

The developed poor people got nothing to say in this case since they are poor and well, who cares about what the poor wants?

Re:As nations we are all fucked (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#42031521)

With most people in the 1st world countries under debt...

...the banks will sell those debts at an even greater profit.. big win for them.

...only if the debt is larger than the value of their property

The debts are larger than the output of entire countries [reuters.com]

Cause? (0, Flamebait)

Shagg (99693) | about 2 years ago | (#42031377)

What percentage of that warming comes from man-made causes?

Re:Cause? (5, Insightful)

petteyg359 (1847514) | about 2 years ago | (#42031441)

Who gives a crap about whether it is "natural" anymore? The overall effect is quite undesirable, so regardless of whether we're causing it, we damn well ought to be doing something to counteract it, if we care to survive.

Re:Cause? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031567)

We, as a species, will survive. Just not necessarily with our current population level intact.

Re:Cause? (5, Informative)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 2 years ago | (#42031611)

If you want to counteract it, you kind of need to understand the root cause. However, given that there's been 90% consensus among the scientific community for more than a decade, the root cause is not really in question. At this point, posing the question of what causes climate change is code for saying, "addressing the known cause would have adverse impact on me, so I deny the known cause."

Re:Cause? (1, Offtopic)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#42031653)

Mod parent up. Comments that acknowledge climate change on slashdot tend to get modded down.

Re:Cause? (1)

Shagg (99693) | about 2 years ago | (#42031685)

I thought it was code for "I don't know the answer, so I'm asking a question".

Re:Cause? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031817)

Then you've not been paying attention to the discussion.

There may be some people out there genuinely asking the question for informative purposes.

Not most.

Re:Cause? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031827)

I find it preposterously unlikely that any person
A) legitimately doesn't know the answer.
B) can't or haven't read ANY of the VERY MANY explanations that have already been produced in great detail about it, available after 5 seconds of googling
C) is asking this question out of good-faith intellectual curiosity.

in the year 2012. Maybe twenty years ago, sure, it would be understandable, but if you're still curious about Climate Change - if you're posting on the Web in 2012 and claim to be uninformed about Climate Change, and don't know what to do to remedy that lack of information, you are almost certainly a straight-up disingenuous, dishonest liar.
Seriously. I can't reconcile those three ideas about a person in 2012. I find it WAY more likely that people are trying to derail things with already-settled 'is it real' debates.

Re:Cause? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032091)

I'm not ignorant, just confused. The problem I have is whom to believe.
Each side has a very legitimate explanation of why the other side has an interest in lying/exaggerating/overstating its case.
And no change has occurred yet that I am qualified to observe or evaluate.

Re:Cause? (2)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#42032103)

You don't seem to be getting an answer to your "what percent is man made" question.

That's odd.

Re:Cause? --- thank you! (2)

sgt_doom (655561) | about 2 years ago | (#42031917)

Discussing climate change with the Ameritards is akin to attempting to explain to them why a 4% foreclosure rate in their country wasn't responsible for the global economic meltdown --- it was the banksters' ultra-leveraged bankster run which did it...

Re:Cause? (2, Insightful)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#42032027)

If you want to counteract it, you kind of need to understand the root cause. However, given that there's been 90% consensus among the scientific community for more than a decade, the root cause is not really in question. At this point, posing the question of what causes climate change is code for saying, "addressing the known cause would have adverse impact on me, so I deny the known cause."

It's a myth that it will adversely affect the economy. Fixing the mess will create as many or more jobs as it takes away. The issue is the ones causing the problem have the money and resources to fight change so nothing gets done. They keep denying and adding to the problem and just pay off Congressmen to not do anything. Once they've bled out what money they can the sad joke is the ones causing the warming will switch to technologies to correct the problem so they make money off the fix. These are businessmen and they know from the stock market you want to make money as you ride the stock up then make money as you ride it down. We suffer while they get richer.

Re:Cause? (2, Insightful)

thesupraman (179040) | about 2 years ago | (#42031701)

And if it is natural, what makes you think we can do anything to counteract it?

Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures), we are not
going to make a big impact on the natural cycles even if we reduce to zero..

So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything, so it would seem our science on the matter
is incorrect, our 'measures' to combat it seem primarily designed to fill government and large business coffers and
everyone has completely lost focus on such 'small' issues as chemical pollution (poisons..) and spiraling inefficiency
in our base lifestyles (you think massive systemic waste DOESNT effect the environment? really?

And what makes you think it would be much of a challenge to survive? I am amazed by how people seem to confuse
inconvenience with survival these days.

If you really want to massively cut back carbon emissions, then start rallying against GreenPeace and the other
kneejerk 'enviromentalists' blocking of latest generation nuclear power. Rolling out that to replace both old
dangerous design reactors and combustion based generation is by FAR the biggest step there could be.

Re:Cause? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031791)

It's nice to concentrate all of the retard into a single post, very convenient.

A 3-4% increase in atmospheric carbon can have drastic effects on temperature, so that argument is stupid. The models have actually done an excellent job of predicting long term trends, so your facts are just wrong on that one. There's far more money behind climate change denial than there is behind climate change research, so your facts are wrong on that one. We would have to build a new nuke plant per week to keep up with current trends in usage, so whatever nuclear's virtues, it's not a complete answer.

Re:Cause? (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#42031929)

A 3-4% increase in atmospheric carbon can have drastic effects on temperature, so that argument is stupid.

True. But if humans only contribute 3-4% to the 3-4% increase in atmospheric carbons, what effect would human reduction in carbon consumption have on temperature. I am betting on nothing.

Re:Cause? (0, Flamebait)

thesupraman (179040) | about 2 years ago | (#42032015)

Did you just cut and paste that off your favorite pundits blog? Perhaps you should go and learn some actual facts.

None of the models has yet managed to predict, in fact they tend to be wildly off, and generally hide behind claims of 'weather is not climate' and yet expect their long term predictions to be accurate when their 1-5 year predictions have been wildly inaccurate (no one is asking them for week or month scale predictions, THAT is weather..). They are trying to predict chaotic systems with massive feedback, small inaccuracies amplify over time, not the opposite.

And we are not talking about a 3-4% increase in atmospheric carbon, learn to read, total human output is 3-4% of the yearly output of carbon, that is what the carbon cycle is about! Global atmospheric CO2 levels are highly cyclic, and have been above the current level many many times before, and have also fallen many many times before - as ecosystems ADJUST, funny how log lasting natural systems tend to be highly resilient and self-adjusting...

As there are about 70 nuclear reactors (all old bad designs) in the US, we could replace all of those in much less than 2 years by your 'one a week' BS, nuclear is of course only 20% of US power generation (although 80% in france for example, where rampant over consumption of energy is not as endemic), but at one a week, you would have replaced the total US power generation infrastructure in around 7-8 years, even the US power consumption is not growing THAT fast (in fact dropped 5% from 2004 to 2010, but again dont let facts get in the way of your stupidity)..

I notice you ignore the statements about real pollution and rampant waste, I guess you like YOUR BS lifestyle, and just think money and governments are just going to magic the problems away if you put some fashionable bumper stickers on, and bake cookies for some nice rallies, hmmm?

Re:Cause? (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 2 years ago | (#42031937)

Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures)

3 to 4% of what? Of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now, about a third is due to humans burning fossil fuels [wikipedia.org] . If we stop emitting carbon dioxide, the warming will level off within a few decades. If we continue to burn fossil fuels at an increasing rate, the warming will be several degrees Celsius this century, and it won't stop there.

Re:Cause? (3, Funny)

Ichijo (607641) | about 2 years ago | (#42031575)

100% of anthropogenic global warming comes from man-made causes.

Don't concern yourself with how much of global warming is natural. We should be trying to limit man's contribution.

If Canada is spared that is enough for USA (1, Informative)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 2 years ago | (#42031383)

They have enough land, and enough oil in tar sands too. Too bad, Canada, we need some breathing space lebensraum [wikipedia.org] , so we are going to have to invade you and take you over. Too bad your experiments with pinko single payer health care and welfare state has to end this way. Learn the fine distinctions between co-pay, co-insurance, deductible and life-time caps.

nonsense, US has more oil than the Saudis (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 years ago | (#42031561)

we can handle ourselves, and vacation in the oceanfront states of Utah, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Iowa. shame the Great Lakes got overrun, but hey, Marlin fishing in Wisconsin ain't bad.

Re:nonsense, US has more oil than the Saudis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031641)

>"the Great Lakes got overrun"?

I'm sitting at around 1000' of altitude. What are you talking about?

no coast, no problem (0)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 2 years ago | (#42031391)

Puget Sound will be saved by installing some canal locks on the Strait of Juan de Fuca (yes, that's a real place). SF Bay will be saved by closing off the bay entrance. Everyone else? Sorry. Cascadia FTW! (I'm including SF Bay area in Cascadia because I want to.)

Underwater? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031403)

Venice was [wikipedia.org] a first-world country. Now [theaustralian.com.au] you can swim in its streets.

Re:Underwater? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031819)

Venice doesn't have water problems because the oceans are rising. It has problems because it is located on land that is sinking. New Orleans has the same problem, but they built dikes and installed pumps to keep it dry. In both cases the cities will eventually need to be abandoned as it becomes too expensive to cope with the situation unless we enter a new ice age very quickly.

World Bank, saviours of the universe. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031435)

My goodness! We need to implement carbon credits! That will save the planet so the World Bank can sleep better at night. Hooray for the World Bank and all their concern for all of us! They are like a warm and snuggly blanket, defenders of high temperature everywhere.

if it's real.. (1)

NikeHerc (694644) | about 2 years ago | (#42031451)

If AGW is real, you have two choices: adapt or die.

Nations? What nations? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031473)

If we hit a warming of 4 degrees, you can forget about nations or countries as we know it. The civilization may well collapse. If we hit 6 degrees, say hello to the next mass extinction. "It would cause a mass extinction of almost all life and probably reduce humanity to a few struggling groups of embattled survivors clinging to life near the poles." Details on this article [independent.co.uk] .

No idea if this is change one can believe in, but it looks like a very serious change... er, problem.

Uh-huh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031479)

Another Load-O-Crap.

hahahahaha idiots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031505)

Another 10 years they'll be telling us OMG it's 50 degrees warmer ! OMG OMG. Put taxes up! OMG

every year they say this. every year it's no warmer.
I thought they'd given up on this.

And in the mean time US OIl production increase... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031541)

At the same time the US speaks of becoming one of the biggest oil producer by exploiting oil shale. Tragedy of the common indeed.

Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase (4, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#42031759)

The U.S. and Europe aren't to blame, Sparky. Our CO2 emissions have been either steady on on a downward trend for some time. If you want to point fingers, look at China.

Re:And in the mean time US OIl production increase (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032125)

And who is buying their exports en masse, using their cheap and dirty power imputs to stock the shelves of Walmart and every other big box retailer, driving down the cost of goods? All the while, externalizing the environmental costs on all of humanity. We are drug addicts blaming the dealer. No one is blameless.

Saying "China bad!" while buying their industrial output hand over fist, not realizing the consequences of our own actions isn't looking at the whole problem. The fix? Get off the consumption treadmill - build durable, local, and repairable. Live in walkable communities.

We don't have a chance in hell. I live 10 kilometres from my office, but biking is risking your life - the infrastructure is car centric, sharing the narrow congested pothole filled roads with cars doing 60km plus. I then sit a a screen all day. I could telecommute, but our culture is such that it would be a bad career move, because physical presence is still oddly preferred, even though the real estate savings and productivity gains objectively make sense to a smart company.

The fact that we can't tackle these simple changes in our communities even before getting into international treaty complexities gives me little faith.

Misleading subject (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031559)

The world bank report at

http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf

does not make the case that the global temperature is actually increasing. Mostly it simply worries that there are "temperature anomalies" and pontificates the consequences IF a 4 degree C were to occur. The actual global temperature is not on pace for this to actually occur, however. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/now-warming-since-kyoto-was-rejected-fifteen-years-ago/

Cars (1)

skade88 (1750548) | about 2 years ago | (#42031563)

Cars are the world's single largest source of carbon. http://www.teslamotors.com/ [teslamotors.com] save us!

Banksters in on the scam now (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031571)

Wow, bankers are the authority on science now. I suppose that's an upgrade from politicians like Al Gore?

What a joke the scaremonger / banksters are.

Re:Banksters in on the scam now (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42031691)

Why do you need to refer to Gore or bankers, when the scientists are telling you what is happening? And no, the Heartland Institute does not do science.

Re:Banksters in on the scam now (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031797)

And the slashdot crowd eats it up.

Go slashbots! Keep on sucking the bankster cock. If your face isn't covered with bankster spooge, you're anti-science!

Heh. My CAPTCHA was "springer." The so-called intellectual elite here do resemble Jerry Springer guests.

Devil's Advocate (0, Flamebait)

BlackusDiamondus (945259) | about 2 years ago | (#42031713)

I'm probably going to modded into oblivion, but I'm sorry I simply don't buy what this article by the World Bank is selling Temperatures have remained steady for 16 years now in spite of computer models released by the IPCC which show that by now temperatures should be much higher. So there's likely a negative feedback effect that has been left undocumented by most models, and this should be concerning many people in the climate science game. Honestly, this articles smacks of an attempt by the World Bank to scare people into getting on board an ETS - from which they will directly benefit in a financial manner. I really wish that anyone outside of the sphere of science would stop making unfounded claims to push their own agendas.

Re:Devil's Advocate (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42031869)

Citations?

I thought last summer was the hottest on record, that does not sound stable.

Re:Devil's Advocate (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42031895)

The 1998 claim has been peddled for the last six or seven years. It's bullshit, but the AGW skeptic crowd are like Creationists, and let no claim, no matter how frequently debunked, go to waste.

4 degrees warmer? (1)

emho24 (2531820) | about 2 years ago | (#42031715)

Give in now

1st world countries (4, Insightful)

Punto (100573) | about 2 years ago | (#42031835)

yeah let's worry about how this will affect the 1st world countries, those are the real victims here

Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part 1: (1)

skade88 (1750548) | about 2 years ago | (#42031867)

We need to take a lesson from Mr Burns. Burns then reveals to Smithers his grandest scheme: the construction of a giant, movable disk that will permanently block out the sun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Shot_Mr._Burns%3F) The Simpsons solved global warming! No sun, no warming!

Ooooohhhh...!! "Stern warning from the banksters' (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | about 2 years ago | (#42031903)

.... front office, the World Bank. You mean the previous neocon there, Robert Zoellick (and long-time member of the Trilateral Commission --- I know, I know, the Ameritards refuse to acknowledge influence groups, etc., ad nauseum), never realized any global climate change was going on??? Geez, thanks World Bankster, front office to the banksters --- that's kinda like all those slimey douchetards who created and sold and profited from all their debt,and now claim it belongs to the rest of us, and we must embrace austerity to pay off all their debt while they were paid billions and trillions for creating and selling such debt (I know, I know, the Ameritards refuse to learn arithmetic, so they won't understand what I'm talking about...).

Benefits? (0)

jetole (1242490) | about 2 years ago | (#42031909)

Benefits? I have lived in Ontario and Miami both several times. Toronto gets hotter then Miami in the summer. The earth is on a tilt and the areas that get the coldest where winter is seasonal tend to get the hottest in the summer season.

Oh nooo (0)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 2 years ago | (#42031919)

Now the sky is REALLY falling! Using the best science available, Al Gore assured us that a hockey stick of global warming was inevitable and ultimately unstoppable. If the last 16 year trend of no warming keeps up... In the name of humanity, WHAT THEN??

Luck for us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031921)

a prediction is never, ever a fact.

Global Warming vs US Government Debt? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031975)

Why does Slashdot have 10x the stories on global warming verses the rapidly increasing US Government debt? Don't you think debt is a more pressing problem?

Re:Global Warming vs US Government Debt? (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#42032099)

Because Slashdot is mostly a liberal rag, with a chunk of Libertarians, and a smithering of conservatives.

World Bank... (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 2 years ago | (#42032111)

Just curious....

Why is a bank involved in climate science...???

Oh, that's right, global tax would greatly benefit a World Bank.

All makes sense now....

Alarmism (0)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#42032113)

As I have detailed [slashdot.org] previously, we will likely run out of fossil fuels before a 2C warming. Not that it matters much in terms of policy: while we don't know whether global warming or fuel scarcity will happen, either of them is a good reason to abandon fossil fuels.

If we get near extinction... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032121)

... you can count on some climate denier to contend that extinction is not related to human activity and, in fact, is a good thing, because even if could possibly but improbably be wrong, human extinction will solve global warming.

I wonder whether a witch hunt is in order or if it could increase our CO2 footprint.

A trend is a trend (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#42032127)

I suppose that this is related to the sea level rising [nasa.gov] observed by the NASA. One thing is speech with an agenda and another cold (ok, warm in this case) facts.

We could do something about it? We should? The problem is that there is no "we" there, probably the ones that could do something (and probably have a role in the current situation) won't.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?