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!

Report Says Climate Change Already Evident, Emissions Gap Growing

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the blame-canada dept.

EU 623

Dupple writes "Following on from a world bank report of 4 degree C warmer world comes this story from the BBC. 'The effects of climate change are already evident in Europe and the situation is set to get worse, the European Environment Agency has warned. "Every indicator we have in terms of giving us an early warning of climate change and increasing vulnerability is giving us a very strong signal," observed EEA executive director Jacqueline McGlade.'" Here's the report in question. There also comes news we've hit record levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

cancel ×

623 comments

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

Cap and Trade solves everything! (1, Flamebait)

Sarius64 (880298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055407)

Wait, you haven't heard? We have Cap and Trade in California now so Global Warming is solved.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (5, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055721)

A glib and superficial comment at best.

If you don't believe that you need to think seriously about your own personal contributions to the problem, then you rob future generations by your sloth.

There will be all sorts of methods, some that work, some that are insane and don't work, but I appreciate California trying to tackle the problem. With hard work, the California example will help mitigate the problem and raise understanding of how to make it work.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055799)

then you rob future generations by your sloth.

Fuck you, you privileged, self righteous shit. If you think the scumbags in Sacramento gives a rat's ass about anything but their own interests you are deluded to the point of mental retardation. Seriously, all you holier than thou asshat douchebag pseudo-intellects need to drop dead.

That'll put a dent in the carbon production, eh, shitrag?

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (1)

microbox (704317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056237)

If you think the scumbags in Sacramento gives a rat's ass about anything but their own interests you are deluded to the point of mental retardation

Now that's a misanthropic model of human nature. Probably says more about you then anything else ;)

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (-1)

fredrated (639554) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056257)

Wow, someone has a stick up their ass!

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055823)

Obama has done more than any US president, and I hazard to guess any foreign nation leader, to curb climate change. Under his administration he doubled the fuel economy standards for cars and light duty trucks. Consider that these standards haven't increased since early Clinton years!

since in US cars and light trucks account for more than 25% of GHGs, his one action will shave 10-15% off the top. Not too shabby, eh?

also, consider all the side benefits, energy security, geopolitical, economic. winning!

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (3, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055919)

Lots of work to be done. International ship exhaust is unbelievably, even insanely high and totally unregulated. We have lots of "clean coal" to replace, along with the jobs that'll be lost. One mountain at a time....

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056037)

No he didn't. He doubled the mandate.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (1)

microbox (704317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056247)

any foreign nation leader

Germany, Denmark, and yes, China.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055849)

California is solving it's pollution problem by trashing it's economy and encouraging its citizens to move elsewhere.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (0)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056169)

and encouraging its citizens to move elsewhere.

That may be true for the porn industry in California because of a recent law that requires all pornstars to wear condoms for all sex.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056173)

Are you currently living in California? I visited in October and it looked pretty much full of people.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055927)

Obviously he is not robbing anybody of anything, the 'future generations' do not actually exist and they may not exist for all we know. 'Future generations' is an abstract idea that completely worthless from our perspective, we will never meet them, we will never know if they even will exist or not and it is really not our problem what challenges they will face as time progresses. We certainly are doing our best to make our own lives better (well, not the ones that are socialists but reasonable people who understand that free market capitalism is the actual solution to the environmental challenge, since it is the free market capitalism that creates the tools necessary to solve the problem by increasing the wealth of the society in pursuit of private profits).

The future generations are about as abstract as the past generations, and thousands and millions of years ago people faced challenges that probably were much more grave, including environmental catastrophes.

If today we turn the clock back to technologies that are supposedly 'green' and we end up stifling the progress and innovation that allows us to use more energy and thus provides us with higher standard of living, creating more wealth that in turn allows us to attack problems that we may face, the future generations may think of us not as 'saviours' of anything but as short-sighted idiots who apparently ended up wasting the opportunity to achieve the critical mass of productivity necessary to move to the next phase of technological evolution not based on unsustainable government subsidies that come from diminishing the productive output by denying capital to the actual producers of the said capital, but by allowing the free market to operate to its full potential and solve our actual problems.

In other words we need to think of ourselves first and at all times, because the concept of 'future generations' may not materialise at all if we degrade our economy and thus technology enough so that the inevitable war for resources destroys our current potential to achieve the necessary economic and technological momentum that would take us over this coming evolutionary hump presented in the form of environmental challenge.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056067)

Woah, woah. Hold on a second. Why do you think the war for resources is inevitable, exactly?

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056209)

Ummm, because it is already happening?

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (4, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056107)

You weasel my words.

I'm the future generation. I have a grandson due in March. It's not an abstract idea. There will be no zombie apocalypse. There will be children.

Maybe we're the generation that realized through scientific discovery, that there are limitations to resources. Maybe we took responsibility for our actions, rather than blithely ignoring the warning signs.

Wealth creation is a long tried and true, but ultimately vacuous destination. Maybe we sacrifice a little as a world community and benefit greatly from having done so, rather than hedonistically building wads of cash and grandiose castles.

War is not inevitable. Those that believe this often use it as an excuse to behave badly and cowardly rather than face up to the fact that we all live on this planet together. Degrading the economy will be laughable in the face of not being able to breathe, with shorelines starting in the Rockies and Appalachia.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (1)

microbox (704317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056283)

Maybe we're the generation that realized through scientific discovery, that there are limitations to resources.

Nah, that was generations ago.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (1)

Titan1080 (1328519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056059)

As if cap and trade can actually be considered 'trying'.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056195)

Except for fuel reformulation, and the actions of various AQMD, this is a start.

Re:Cap and Trade solves everything! (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056141)

With hard work, the California example will help mitigate the problem...

Yes, we should pay the price so rich environmental scientologists can scurry off to Rio in the wintertime more often and not feel guilty about it. See, this is one of the big issues behind a lot of the 'green' movements. All the sacrifice is expected to come from our hides. I'll believe the likes of Al Gore are serious when they sell their private jets and start riding public transport.

Ashes in your mouth... (2)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055423)

Now we've rewritten history
The one thing we've found out
Sweet taste of vindication
It turns to ashes in your mouth

Not only in Europe (2)

roger_pasky (1429241) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055435)

Tell about it to New York people. I've heard it is getting windier there by.

Re:Not only in Europe (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055505)

believe it or not the last 50 some years in NYC have been very lite on hurricanes. in the last few hundred years when it was colder the NYC area has had a lot more frequent and powerful storms than Sandy

Re:Not only in Europe (1)

microbox (704317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055677)

in the last few hundred years when it was colder the NYC area has had a lot more frequent and powerful storms than Sandy

How do you know that?

Re:Not only in Europe (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055735)

duh?

wikipedia?

they have articles on hurricanes and there are records of storms going back hundreds of years. NYC used to get hit by a Cat 3 storm every half century and smaller storms every few years. Sandy was a Cat 1.

the last Cat 3 hit NYC in 1938.

Re:Not only in Europe (1)

microbox (704317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056049)

Can you quantify "a lot more frequent"?

Re:Not only in Europe (1)

roger_pasky (1429241) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055959)

Good to know (I didn't know it). Thank you! I guess we humans trend to extrapolate (temporary) local data as a whole. We have to think in a wider (temporal) range.

Is there enough data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055437)

to show this is definitely not a naturally occurring cycle?

Re:Is there enough data (0, Flamebait)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055493)

Nope. And won't be for several thousand years, if that's what you're after.

Methinks that in a decade or two some natural process will start to decrease carbon levels and then those people put in charge of whatever-crackpot-carbon-saving scheme now will be able to do an I-told-you-so then. When, really, everything we did made zero difference whatsoever.

There is no way to gather a significant amount of data to suggest that we're doing anything "bad" or that anything "good" we do is working without comparing to some 10,000+ year cycle that we've never observed. Best records for such things go back a few hundred years, and beyond that the data is very sketchy and specific only to specific areas (e.g. ice cores, etc.).

Re:Is there enough data (2)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055621)

"Methinks that in a decade or two some natural process"
Fairy dust? Maybe unicorn farts?

Re:Is there enough data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055687)

Plants.

Re:Is there enough data (4, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055753)

Yes, because everyone knows that global plant coverage is increasing at an enormous rate and will continue to do so as the global population expands.[/sarcasm] All the plant growth of a decade wouldn't soak up the CO2 from a single year of our emissions, not to mention the fact that in 100 years when those plants die they'll release all that CO2 right back into the atmosphere.

Re:Is there enough data (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056109)

Sorry, just let me go dump fifty megatons of fertilizer into the ocean; I'll be right back...

Re:Is there enough data (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055831)

Oh, right, of course, because after all the number of plants on Earth is increasing!

Re:Is there enough data (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055627)

Yep. I have convincing evidence that all those exhaust pipes and coal-fired power stations were formed by erosion. This is a completly natural process that would have happened anyway.

Re:Is there enough data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055783)

And those darn volcanoes. Those pump out all sorts of CO2. But volcanoes are man-made, right?

Re:Is there enough data (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056095)

A fraction of one percent of the non-biological co2 emissions are the problem. Of course.

Re:Is there enough data (3, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056099)

Myth: Busted! [google.es]

Re:Is there enough data (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055755)

Methinks that in a decade or two some natural process will start to decrease carbon levels

Meagrees. Methinks it is much more likely that ledow (319597) is much more up to speed on climate modelling, geology, large scale biology and other natural processes than armies of scientists who have devoted large parts of their lives to studying this. Mealsothinks that people who have been studying it for a long time and spent their lives shooting down their collegues and being shot down (science is like that: there's no consipracy, it's generally a bunch of people desperately trying to make a name for themselves by proving everyone else wrong) are far more likely to have missed something obvious than ledow (319597).

Mewouldalso like to point out that your arrogance and self belief is quite astounding if you think that you're more knowledgable than the world experts.

Meisnot going to link to all the arguments about why your last paragraph is tosh because they are easily found and you would have read them by now if you actually had an open mind, rather than an ideology.

Re:Is there enough data (2)

Zalbik (308903) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056157)

Methinks that in a decade or two some natural process will start to decrease carbon levels

Mewouldalso like to point out that your arrogance and self belief is quite astounding if you think that you're more knowledgable than the world experts.

I dunno, ledow (319597) is quite possibly right about some natural process decreasing carbon levels if we don't do anything...just wrong about the timeline.

See Malthusian catastrophe [wikipedia.org] for more details.

I highly doubt that we will are capable of altering our climate in such a way to destroy all life on the planet. However, we very well might be altering it in such a way to make it very uncomfortable for us.

Re:Is there enough data (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056277)

Mewouldalso like to point out TFA is written inextricably interlinking (or so its worldview declares) "socioeconomic disparities" with climate change. Climate change thus, as predicted, becomes another argument for government control.

And the problems climate change may introduce are economic issues. The vaunted scientists have been making incorrect analysis of economic impacts for 50 years. Impact is an economic issue.

These are the same clueless ones who brought you the fraud of peak oil, destructo-botted by capitalism when it got around to it.

If only an economist had non-controversial theories which could predict this! [juliansimon.com] Theories which made counter-intuitive predictions that came true again and again and again!

Re:Is there enough data (1, Interesting)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055765)

What I don't get is why we can't see this shit coming. We make all these predictions about what's going to happen, and then one day, BAM! "Oh shit! While we weren't looking, the earth got hotter, like our models said!" It's not ever a gradual report. There's like, "The earth is getting warmer" "The average temperature is increasing" "Global average temperature is in an up-trend" "TODAY, studies found that the earth is TWO DEGREES HOTTER!" "Earth still getting hotter" "Earth hotter still" "Global warming" "Manbearpig" "STUDY SHOWS EARTH 4 DEGREES HOTTER WOW!!!"

There's no "wow" here. The earth should only be marginally hotter today than it was yesterday; you shouldn't wake up and be like, "WHOA! I didn't know the earth was that hot!" You're a scientist, you've been tracking how hot the earth is for the past 30 years, how did it get several degrees hotter than you thought it was while you weren't looking?

Re:Is there enough data (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055981)

Maybe because scientists have actually been UNDERESTIMATING THE DAMAGE so people like you don't call them "alarmist". See this is the thing that kills me, guy like you always say "yeah, but what if it's not as bad as they say?" but you never stop to ask "What if it's actually much worse!?"

Re:Is there enough data (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055877)

you're right on past evidence, that CO2 is negative rienforced. if it goes up too high, natural cycles push it down. see daisyworld. but science is telling us that this is getting flipped to a positive reinforcement cycle, where the more global warming, the more GHGs and additional global warming.

of course, global warming is a misnomer. climate change includes rare storms like sandy, but also changes in climate zones at rainforests, etc. sucks to be us!

Re:Is there enough data (1)

frostfreek (647009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055989)

There is no way to gather a significant amount of data to suggest that we're doing anything "bad"

The amount of carbon (and pollution) we sending into the atmosphere is staggering, and currently accelerating.
Do you like the earth's atmosphere as it is now? Do you think we can just carry on going in this direction, without adversely affecting it?

Re:Is there enough data (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056185)

some natural process will start to decrease carbon levels

Yep, but most likely the process is going to create inhospitable climates for people (which would reduce carbon levels, just not the kind you're thinking)

significant amount of data to suggest that we're doing anything "bad" or that anything "good"

You're ignoring the fact that global temperatures are definitely rising. Whether it's from anthropogenic "good" or "bad" is beside the point. It is going to get very, very tough for people to live on this planet in the next 20-50 years. It would be wise to start figuring out ways to deal with arid cropland, ocean acidification and dried up aquifers. Oh, add a mean temp of 110F (possibly higher) to the US midwest region (you know, where most cropland is). In a very short time, even the "crackpot" schemes are going to seem quite viable.

Re:Is there enough data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056265)

If everything you do not understand is classified as sketchy.... then I guess calculus is sketchy and gravity as well.

Re:Is there enough data (3, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055515)

Apparently, there will never be enough data to convince some people of that. (See also "Evolution, teaching in US schools.")

Re:Is there enough data (1)

Ferretman (224859) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055991)

I would agree with the general sentiment, but probably NOT in the way an AGW believer quite means....

Ferret

Re:Is there enough data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055517)

Yeah, and while you're at it maybe we can solve once and for all if the biology department's greenhouse is naturally occurring or not? I think that building is just a natural formation and I haven't seen any convincing evidence otherwise.

Re:Is there enough data (1, Flamebait)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055573)

to show this is definitely not a naturally occurring cycle?

No but the evidence is pretty good that it is primarily forced by CO2. And, in a very real sense it makes little difference if it's anthropogenic or due to His Noodlieness eating that giant bean burrito. We will still have to deal with relatively rapid environmental changes that will cause rapid economic and political pressures which, on top of the fact that there are too many humans running around, is going to create some 'interesting times' for us all.

The new news is that we seem to be plugging along the worst case scenario trend lines. So instead of having 50 to 100 years to deal with issues we may see dramatic changes in 10 - 20. It also makes it less likely that we can reverse the process by economic or political means which means that there will be even more pressure to start tossing some Hail Mary passes.

Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

Re:Is there enough data (1)

cdrguru (88047) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056071)

A. Yes, we have had a very nice time for the last 400 years or so and that may be coming to an end. Humans may have had a big hand in pushing things into a less stable configuration, but regardless of the source the fact is that climate stability should not be something that we are counting on as a whole species. Yes, things might be tougher for a while but as a species we need to roll with it.

B. Too many humans is a problem that we need to solve in one way or another. One way is to fall into the "sustainability" trap and say that we need to get the population down to a sustainable level - really, really fast. The other way is to start exporting humanity. There is no third way of dealing with this and exporting humanity may not be much of a solution for solving problems on Earth but it does solve a lot of problems for the species.

How would we reduce the population really fast? Well, nuclear warfare between multiple actors would probably have that result as would some really nasty biowar stuff. Both would likely result in lots of bodies in the streets, so many that there wouldn't be enough people to clean up before they rot and are fed upon. However, I think if we can get everyone on the "Green" bandwagon we might be able to implement mass exterminations where people simply willing go down to the local "Green" centre so they can stop being a burden on the environment. You know, do it for the sake of the planet and your children.

Identify the mechanism for that cycle first. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055611)

Because otherwise you're no different from those who are saying "Goddidit" to any event.

Wessa All Gonna Die!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055485)

The end is nigh! Repent, sinners! Repent!!!!!!!!

Re:Wessa All Gonna Die!!!!!!! (2)

Apu de Beaumarchais (2023822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055617)

This is so much worse than AGW. Jar-Jar has become a preacher declaring the end of the world.

Re:Wessa All Gonna Die!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055619)

We're all going to die. But most people living now will do so in less horrific ways and at rates we've grown accustomed to. The next generation will inherit and witness the gruesome massive die-offs.

(my Prove was slayer. raining blood!)

Re:Wessa All Gonna Die!!!!!!! (1)

Novogrudok (2486718) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055771)

1. The end is nigh
2. Repent
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!

Ridiculous (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055487)

Climate change scientists claim the peak 130,000 years ago was a natural peak and a different cause to the mainly man made recent spikes in Co2 and climate.

But the earth was created 7000 years ago, because in God time, 1 day is 1000 years, so he created the earth in 6 days, plus one rest day = 7000 man years! God's prophet, Glenn Beck said so.

So they're thinking is all unsciency! They've contradicted themselves, with their Liberal lies!

If God was going to destroy the earth, he would have said so, via his prophet Beck. He hasn't said that, he's just said that the evolution of gay abortions is a sin. Oh and use more oil, he definitely said that too.

Enough with the new 'record levels' of C02 (1)

dcblogs (1096431) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055499)

I love an alarmist, panic-in-the-streets, headless-man-found-in-topless-bar, headlines as much as the next guy, but the Keeling Curve has been hitting 'record levels' every year since the late 1950s.

I Disagree, It Is Important to Remind People (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055647)

I love an alarmist, panic-in-the-streets, headless-man-found-in-topless-bar, headlines as much as the next guy, but the Keeling Curve has been hitting 'record levels' every year since the late 1950s.

Yeah well, believe it or not one of the common arguments I face when talking about man made CO2 is that human emissions are nothing compared to natural forces of CO2 [skepticalscience.com] and a similar argument is that the Earth has a natural cycle that keeps this level of CO2 in balance and in check.

So as we watch CO2 levels steadily rise, it gives us insight into how much of these "natural processes" are effecting greenhouse gases in our atmosphere versus what we are contributing to these levels. And I think it's important to remind people that 1) these levels are steadily rising so no, the Earth is not keeping itself in check, 2) it's not just something where turn on the "remove CO2 machines" to fix it and 3) if natural processes are the cause of these levels of CO2, where is the corresponding increase in these natural processes?

Seriously people tell me all the time that one volcanic eruption dwarfs anything man could do in a decade. And I don't know where they get this shit. So tell me, where are all these new volcanic eruptions to explain this steady trend upward? Oh, we can't report that it's rising because you feel offended that it's "alarmist, panic-in-the-streets, headless-man-found-in-topless-bar, headlines." With all due respect, you're not helping this situation!

Re:I Disagree, It Is Important to Remind People (1)

dcblogs (1096431) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055873)

Offended? Plz. Hardly. IRepeating the same headline year after year about the same trend misinforms the public about the gravity of the problem. The problem, as you point out, is that people don't get the basics, so why compound the problem with lousy reporting?

Re:Enough with the new 'record levels' of C02 (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055679)

but the Keeling Curve has been hitting 'record levels' every year since the late 1950s.

In other news, upwards trends go upwards. Not surprisingly since so much CO2 is being put into the atmosphere.

Really that short on page space for the graph? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055519)

I prefer mine with some context. Like this one. [ucr.edu]

Re:Really that short on page space for the graph? (2)

Troyusrex (2446430) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056009)

I prefer mine with some context. Like this one. [ucr.edu]

That's pretty poor context. That graph is pure distortion. It's has the time from 1870 to now at one scale and the rest in thousands of years. Moreover, it clearly shows that temperatures have been rising for years before civilization was around and is now at the high point.

Since we are all pretty well aware that we are between ice ages it doesn't say much at all and it gives absolutely no indication if the current warming trend is usual or not.

Record CO2 happens every year... (2)

grimJester (890090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055531)

Just look at the curve [climatecentral.org] The rise is so steady every year in the last fifty has set a record and every year in the next fifty probably will too.

Re:Record CO2 happens every year... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055597)

Hasn't it been going steadily up since the 1750s?

I blame Mr. Watt and his steam engine for all the problems.

Re:Record CO2 happens every year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055779)

Hasn't it been going steadily up since the 1750s?

I blame Mr. Watt and his steam engine for all the problems.

Interesting point. If the level has been rising for the entire span of the graph, how can we tell if it's not just the continuation of some much longer steady trend?

No, it doesn't. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055681)

The CO2 level in 2011 was higher than any CO2 level in 2010, 2009, 2008, and so on.

Therefore your assertion "Record CO2 happens every year" is PROVEN false.

Re:Record CO2 happens every year... (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055797)

The upward trend is clearly due to the declining numbers of pirates.

Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055571)

I love that the article includes the chart showing "Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory".

Kinda like a thermometer hanging over a boiling pot of water to show it is warm.

Re:Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056217)

Analogies: making incorrect people feel good about their bad ideas since forever.

1. You're treating a static sampling as the same as a first derivative trend sampling.
2. You're suggesting that a tropical place is warm, thus more likely to have errors in co2 measurement. What?

Seems Fishy (1)

Apu de Beaumarchais (2023822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055577)

The only info I saw in the article about the actual evidence they're using is.

The report said the cost of damage caused by extreme weather events had increased from 9bn euros (£7bn) in the 1980s to 13bn euros in the 2000s. One of the report's authors, Andre Jol, head of the EEA's vulnerability and adaptation group, added: "We know that the main increase in damage costs from natural disasters has not been from climate change, as such, but more as a result of an increase in wealth, people and infrastructure in risk areas."

They make no mention of inflation so if we assume they didn't factor that in then even ignoring the increase in wealth, the damage has decreased over that period. They either neglected to account for it or failed to indicate they accounted for it. Bad reporting either way I see it.

Re:Seems Fishy (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055693)

Yes, the reporting sucks, as usual. If the climate were perfectly stable (never is) and human economic growth continued you would EXPECT damages from pretty much everything to increase unless people in general were rational and had enough foresight to mitigate obvious problems like putting lots of expensive things next to the ocean.

Add a changing environment (hotter, colder - it really doesn't make much difference) and you're going to have more damage - unless you get smart about where to place things.

But the climate is changing - and changing fairly quickly. Whether or not mankind is really forcing the change or not, it still is going to be a big problem because we are pushing the carrying capacity of the planet at present. If you look at the history of human kind it is apparent that climate change has forced numerous civilizations to move, adapt or collapse (or various combinations). Given close to 7 billion people, moving lots of them doesn't work well. Adapting will certainly happen - some more successful than others and collapse is definitely a possibility.

Just try to ignore the media - as usual, it's not being terribly helpful.

Why not reduce emissions? (4, Insightful)

SandwhichMaster (1044184) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055645)

I understand that there are many arguments as to whether global climate change exists, and/or how sever it is. I also understand that trying to reduce our emissions significantly can come at some economic cost. But there are still many low hanging fruits that we could easily tackle as a compromise, at very little cost.

To name a few:

- Boats - No emissions controls at all currently
- Planes - Trains should be a better option (particularly in the U.S.)
- Coal power plants - Outdated tech
- Lawn mowers - Electric mowers could replace most people's mowing needs
- Excessive water consumption - Top loading washing machines are a colossal waste of fresh water

Additionally, there have been numerous studies linking various forms of pollution to cancer and other serious health effects. So we stand to gain healthier people and lower health care costs by reducing our emissions as well.

Re:Why not reduce emissions? (1)

koan (80826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055793)

Trains: Yeah we should have the best rail system in the World but we don't... why?
Coal Power Plants: Thank the politicians.
Lawn Mowers" Why have a lawn?
Excessive Water Consumption: It isn't so much the quantity of water used, it's the condition of the water after use that concerns me.

The solution is easy. fewer humans.

Re:Why not reduce emissions? (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056261)

Ooh, goodie! Start killing the brown people, because they make the most humans!

Re:Why not reduce emissions? (3, Insightful)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055937)

I'm all for lowering emissions, but don't forget about the massive damage that's already been done. To use an analogy, we're pushing a rock down a hill. Lowering emissions means only pushing it less down the hill. We need to stop pushing entirely, get on the other side, slow it down, stop it, and push it back up. That's going to entail a lot more work than replacing lawn mowers and washing machines. We need to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere, suck out pollution in the air, water, and soil, regrow forests and other ecosystems, and figure out how to use the remaining resources of the planet sustainably.

Re:Why not reduce emissions? (1)

Ferretman (224859) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055975)

I had an electric lawn mower for many years....in fact, bought two of them when the first one's magneto died and the company had gone out of business. They're very good IF you get the battery-powered models...too much frustration with the electric cords. I loved both of mine...plenty of power, plenty of capability. Where I am now doesn't actually have a lawn (yet) so the latest mower is in storage. Not that this has *squat* to do with the silliness that is the AGW theory; I just wanted to note that I like the electric mowers quite a bit. Ferret

Re:Why not reduce emissions? (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056231)

Front loading washing machines don't get your clothes clean unless you use specific detergents that create a lot of carbon dioxide to produce. I'm kinda wondering how conserving water is tied to climate change, as well. Do you get science?

The four horsemen are coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055689)

Rivers will turn to blood and humanity will be wiped out! Mankind will pay for his carbon gluttony!!!

Enjoy George W. Bush's 4th term! :-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055691)

I don't know why the neocons hate Obama so much. No one has embraced and expanded the power of the state and the Bush Doctrine like Obama has. Obama apologists: you can suck on a fat cock.

Re:Enjoy George W. Bush's 4th term! :-) (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056191)

As a Canadian, I like to think of Obama forcing cake down into faces of the Republican party with one hand while trying to (ineptly) fix everything else with his other hand. Better to have awkward, clumsy progress in sorta the right direction than none at all.

Not only is it evident (1)

koan (80826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055741)

It's too late to do anything about it, more and more greenhouse gasses are being released from frozen tundras and lakes plus India and China are in full manufacture mode.

The only thing that will turn the tide now is removal of ~6.5 billion humans immediately.

Global warming -- so what? (1, Troll)

Novogrudok (2486718) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055749)

Northern Europe where *I* live can do with some warmer climate. Why should I pay more for my power because of some future possible water shortages in "[river basins of] the Ganges and the Nile"? We must *prepare* for Global Warming, which may mean, for example, helping India and Egypt to build desalination plants and to grow more food in places which were too cold previously.

Re:Global warming -- so what? (3, Interesting)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055871)

Since most of your food is grown in warmer climates, good luck eating when the food runs out. Most food grown everywhere only does so in specific climates. Vary the temperature, rainfall, soil salinity, etc, etc even slightly and it dies. We're looking at global collapse of the food distribution network.

Re:Global warming -- so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056055)

It's not just warmer temperatures, either. More energy in the planet's climate, in general, means much more severe storms and other changes that are stupendously hard to predict. At a high latitude, you might actually wind up with colder winters.

As a Humanist..... (1)

fadethepolice (689344) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055763)

I am not sure what to tell you. More people getting better lifestyles = a warmer planet. We could solve global warming right now, all we have to do is start killing things. Global warming due to human activity is a walk in the park compared to the cataclysmic climate change the world experienced 12,900 years ago when a comet impacted with the planet and dropped the temperatures near chigago in 2 years to the same levels they were when Chicago had a mile of ice on it. If it gets too warm where you live, then move. That is why animals evolved legs. I am in support of minimizing the levels of carbon dioxide as best we can, but climate change is a reality. Cataclysmic climate change is a common occurence on our planet. If you feel that creating a museum of what the earth used to be is more important than humanity advancing our civilization to the point where we can take the life forms on this planet and colonize others then you are a luddite. In the future global warming will be called terraforming and it will occur on mars.

Re:As a Humanist..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055925)

I suppose you'd welcome thousands of displaced islanders into your neighborhood with open arms, being such a humanist and everything.

"Climate change?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055769)

The very term is a perfect example of circular reasoning, since eco-Nazis can then attach it to any sort of weather that doesn't involve balmy 70 degree F days and clear skies. The country was in a mini ice age when George Washington staged his Christmas raid on slumbering British troops. Of course, the country wasn't full of whiny, self-loathing, upper East Side cocktail-sipping pussies back then.

Re:"Climate change?" (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056307)

I just want to know: do you keep these in a text editor and just paste them over, or did you write this one on the spot? C'mon. You'll never be a successful troll if you're that brazen. You have to lead people on with ambiguous comments first.

If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never. (5, Interesting)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055847)

If you’re 27 or younger, you’ve never experienced a colder-than-average month

.
Nowhere on the surface of the planet have we seen any record cold temperatures over the course of the year so far. Every land surface in the world saw warmer-than-average temperatures except Alaska and the eastern tip of Russia. The continental United States has been blanketed with record warmth — and the seas just off the East Coast have been much warmer than average, for which Sandy sends her thanks.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes October 2012:

The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63C (58.23F). This is 0.63C (1.13F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature.

Emphasis added. If you were born in or after April 1985, if you are right now 27 years old or younger, you have never lived through a month that was colder than average. That’s beyond astonishing....

Maps and the full article are here [grist.org] .

Evidence (4, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055863)

It's hard to convince the general public not steeped in an interest in science from an early age the way a lot of the geekverse was. People need to see something happening in a big, clear way before they believe it.

Well, except for religion.

And politicial ideology.

And conspiracy theories.

And urban myths.

And all the "I know what I know" categiries.

And... er... hmmm...

Don't tell the Republicans. (1)

runeghost (2509522) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055865)

Their heads will explode.

On second thought... yes by all means, tell the Republicans!

Let's step back for a moment.... (0)

cdrguru (88047) | about a year and a half ago | (#42055897)

Let us assume for a moment that what we are seeing is 100% the effect of human-produced CO2. I know a lot of people believe that already, but there is little in the way of actual proof of it being so. But just for a moment, let's assume that is the case.

Do we know that reducing the CO2 level in the atmosphere - by whatever means necessary - will reverse or start to reverse climate change?

Do we know at what rate atmospheric CO2 would decrease should we eliminate producing all CO2 immediately? (However impractical or impossible that might be.)

I'd say the answers to those two is no, and no. That means that should we implement draconian means to reduce CO2 we have no real idea of the benefits, other than having (eventually) less CO2 in the atmosphere. This makes it rather difficult to make the case of for such draconian measures as they have unclear benefits after some unknown span of time. No one can say if we close all the cities to cars X will happen in 12 months or if we turn off all coal power plants Y will be the result.

There is another aspect of this. People talk all the time about there being a cult following of climate change believers and how this is nearly a religion. Religious fevor has through the ages produced some very dedicated individuals willing to go to incredible lengths in pursuit of their beliefs. Even without the specter of religion, people with very strong beliefs do things unthinkable to others. Think for a moment about Joan of Arc or Patrick (Give me liberty or give me death!) Henry. At the surface there would appear to be people (James Hanson?) that believe this strongly about climate change and the role of human energy use.

So where are the extraordinary acts? Coal-fired power plants are somewhat on the wane in the US but there are still plenty of them around and they are clearly contributing in a significant way to atmospheric CO2. Here are a number of hard targets with little or zero in the way of real defenses against dedicated individuals and yet no person or group has attacked a power plant in the name of shutting it down to preserve the climate. Some dynamite in the right (wrong?) place could turn a functioning, CO2-spewing power plant into a building that is impractical to repair in a few seconds forever removing that as a source of CO2.

Why has there not been even a single such incident? Are the believers beliefs simply not strong enough when it comes down to it?

The reality is that apparently even the believers do not believe strongly enough to commit extraordinary acts and while there is a clear benefit to ending CO2 production (less atmospheric CO2) the benefits of that in and of itself are somewhat sketchy. The costs associated with even turning down CO2 production in the US through various subtle mechanisms would be huge and life-changing for people - a nationwide cap and trade program with real caps and real costs or a nationwide carbon tax would immediately raise the price of everything in stores; food, clothing, toilet paper, everything. And why would the population of the US put up with that unless some concrete benefit can be shown with a timeline when these benefits are going to come? Any government that tried to implement this would find itself replaced.

(California may be trying to implement something on their own, but because it is not nationwide it is easily circumvented by businesses. What it does is make California increasingly unattractive for businesses and employing people - which has its own rewards as Californians are finding out.)

Re:Let's step back for a moment.... (0)

hondo77 (324058) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056025)

Are you a climatologist? If not then please fuck off.

Re:Let's step back for a moment.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42056121)

Hang on. Are you actually claiming that you need to see people commit acts of terrorist sabotage before you're convinced that they believe in the course of action they are suggesting? (reducing CO2 emissions, in this case)

You realize you're batshit insane, right? More than that, you realize that you shouldn't be participating in civil society, right?

Re:Let's step back for a moment.... (4, Insightful)

slim (1652) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056225)

There is another aspect of this. People talk all the time about there being a cult following of climate change believers and how this is nearly a religion. Religious fevor has through the ages produced some very dedicated individuals willing to go to incredible lengths in pursuit of their beliefs.

...

So where are the extraordinary acts?

I think you have things backwards. Climate change caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is the mainstream, evidence-based consensus. It's the deniers who are like a religion. Just like "creation science", they have people who cherry-pick evidence, mash figures, and come up with conclusions that are counter to the mainstream. Just like "creation science", they have cheerleaders who repeat arguments that have been refuted time and time again (e.g. "volcanoes").

Oh, and of course, there's those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry, who'll back the denialist message, whether they believe it or not.

So perhaps the absence of "extraordinary acts" like blowing up coal fired power stations, is because the people keenest on reducing CO2 emissions, are sane, level headed people.

none (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42055949)

none

Mauna Loa ?? (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056315)

Isn't that right next to a volcano? Didn't they observe a sharp rise a few years ago? The claims are interesting and all, but I think they chose to show a plot from an observation point that is exceptional.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>