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!

"Dramatic Decline" Warning For Plants and Animals

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 696

An anonymous reader writes "Worldwide levels of the chief greenhouse gas that causes global warming have hit a milestone, reaching an amount never before encountered by humans, federal scientists said. Carbon dioxide was measured at 400 parts per million at the oldest monitoring station in Hawaii, which sets the global benchmark. More than half of plants and a third of animal species are likely to see their living space halved by 2080 if current trends continue."

cancel ×

696 comments

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

Hysteria! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705427)

Once again: The sky is falling! : The sky is falling!

Re:Hysteria! (-1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705463)

Bingo... Everyone throw your hands in the air and scream like you just don't care.

Re:Hysteria! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705531)

For example like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hmns6PMWs0

Yep (1, Insightful)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705483)

If species are losing their living space it's due to increasing populations of humans burning their habitat, not from a little CO2. Or from humans using the wrong farming practices, but again not due to CO2 levels.

Re:Yep (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705647)

Wow. Such a convincing argument backed by so many facts.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Re:Yep (3, Insightful)

jimmetry (1801872) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705695)

so is yours. the forests of the world have been torn to shreds over the last 100 years, science says trees are the planet's lungs, and yet skyrocketing carbon has nothing to do with it? -_-

Re:Yep (5, Insightful)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705757)

IIRC, science says algae are (to use your expression) the planet's lungs, not trees.

Re:Yep (5, Insightful)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705861)

Well I thought it was commonly known that people are cutting and burning the rain forest, so let's not blame that on CO2. If climates move further toward the poles due to "warming" species may be able to migrate, but that leaves one to wonder what happens in the areas that are warmest already. Many think those areas turn to desert, but we know that doesn't have to be the case: Reversing desertification [youtube.com] In fact we've been causing it, just not with CO2. And if you don't like the sea level rising, you should look at a map that shows bathymety - the continental shelf areas used to be above water, but the level has been rising since the glaciers started melting. There really is no reason to think we're at the high water mark just because people decided to build cities on the present-day coast.

Besides, I think it would be a good idea to get out of this ice age before another glaciation comes along. Yes, we're still in "the ice age" look it up, we're near the end of an interglacial period. I'd rather give warming a shot than let the ice come back.

Re:Yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705939)

That's right. We need to stop making things out of wood and make everything we need out of plastic.

Re:Yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705979)

I see what you're doin' there. Just because something's made out of plastic doesn't mean the plastic came from petroleum numb nuts.

Here's the evidence you're looking for (5, Interesting)

Pollux (102520) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706039)

Allan Savory [wikipedia.org] gave a really good Ted Talk [ted.com] a few months ago backing up that claim with a substantial amount of science and experience. I hope you're not too lazy to watch all twenty-two minutes of it, but if you are, let me give you a quick synopsis. Dr. Savory states that the majority of our global warming issues are due to desertification (the destruction of grasslands and their transformation into desert areas), and he claims that 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere can be removed simply by ceasing unsustainable agriculture practices and converting these lands into grasslands for grazing.

Re:Yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705825)

So, you're not a disciple at the church of Global Warming, eh?

Re:Yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705901)

No you fools. It's from the rising sea levels covering half of the world. The half of the plants and two thirds of the animals are aquatic, and our predictions of rising sea levels have NEVER been wrong before.

Re:Hysteria! (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705495)

Chicken little's hypothesis was based on one data point though. Sadly, this is not the case for climate change.

Re:Hysteria! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705579)

Sadly, this is not the case for climate change.

Right, it's made up on a bunch of data which can't even predict the past knowns of known events. The models are so poor, the data so cherry picked that it *disputes* the MWP, when the MWP was recorded as a world-wide event. And it even skips the little ice age which came after it.

Re:Hysteria! (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705733)

You mention cherry-picking, but seem to be doing the exact same thing yourself. Well, except you're not even providing citations so we know WHICH models you're talking about and can provide the dozens of responses refuting the claims you are making. So it's more like "talking about a cherry on a tree in a vast orchard without specifying which one."

350ppm (0)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705455)

Didnt they tell us 350PPM was when doom and gloom would start?and also we are in a cooling period eventhough co2 is rising, plants "breath" co2 so I dont see how more co2 will harm plants.

Re:350ppm (5, Informative)

singingjim1 (1070652) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705479)

Isn't it about rising temps and sea levels? THAT'S what's supposed to reduce habitat. Not just CO2 levels by itself. Just sayin'.

Re:350ppm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705607)

So can we just big deep holes in the ocean and use the recovered earth and put it in the mountains... similar to what they are doing in Dubai, but not quite?

Re:350ppm (-1, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705543)

Yep they did. Don't forget that CO2 levels have been in the 1500's and higher and life continued on.

Re:350ppm (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705683)

so I dont see how more co2 will harm plants

Don't say it so loudly, you'll provoke someone to write a paper on it!

Try reading the article (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705685)

"so I dont see how more co2 will harm plants". Yes you do, you just wanted to do a quick denial thing. From the article:

"An international team of researchers looked at the impacts of rising temperatures on nearly 50,000 common species of plants and animals."

"They looked at both temperature and rainfall records for the habitats that these species now live in and mapped the areas that would remain suitable for them under a number of different climate change scenarios."

"The scientists projected that if no significant efforts were made to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 2100 global temperatures would be 4C above pre-industrial levels."

"In this model, some 34% of animal species and 57% of plants would lose more than half of their current habitat ranges. "

So the models very much in line with the UN one at 4 degrees, it will expand the dessert along the equators and push species north into a smaller area presumably. But hey, if you deny it, it won't happen right?

Re:Try reading the article (0)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705749)

this is slashdot, you mean you expected me to RTFA?

Re:Try reading the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705949)

So the models very much in line with the UN one at 4 degrees, it will expand the dessert along the equators and push species north into a smaller area presumably.

I agree that this is bad, but If it's also accompanied by delicious breakfast snacks, then I strongly believe the remaining species will resign themselves to a contented gluttony.

Re:Try reading the article (2)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705995)

"The scientists projected that if no significant efforts were made to limit greenhouse gas emissions, 2100 global temperatures would be 4C above pre-industrial levels."

And if that is way exaggerated, then the rest of their paper is pretty much a waste.

it will expand the dessert along the equators and push species north into a smaller area presumably

The presumption would be incorrect. There is a lot of land in the northern latitudes.

It's also interesting how AGW is being blamed for the more significant problem of habitat destruction. Back at the end of the last glacial period, there was a large shift of ecosystems towards the poles. We didn't see a massive extinction of species.

Re:Try reading the article (1)

bbelt16ag (744938) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706075)

its even worse then this people. I have been reading the articles on on reddit. here are two which should concern us all greatly. http://redd.it/1cswmm [redd.it] http://redd.it/1b6roo [redd.it]

Re:350ppm (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705871)

No, "they" didn't 400 ppm has always been the big concerning level, after which positive feed back systems may be triggered. The truth is nobody really knows - although we are about to.

The statement that 'plants breath CO2 so extra CO2 is good' indicates that you've been smoking way too much of your ganga to understand that an ecosystem is a bit more complex than your hydroponics setup.

Re:350ppm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705887)

Didnt they tell us 350PPM was when doom and gloom would start?and also we are in a cooling period eventhough co2 is rising, plants "breath" co2 so I dont see how more co2 will harm plants.

Yeah, I'm with you Ganja Dude. Here, look - General Motors has a solution to this; they've announced their new fuel efficient Silverados for 2014, which are going to get an estimated 16/23 city/hwy MPG, so what's the big deal? Sure, maybe we'll lose some polar bears, big whoop, just envision yourself at the wheel of a brand new shiny Silverado with an 8" lift kit and a hot chick in a bikini sitting next to you, tearing across the tundra! There's your "cool period" right there! Yeaaaaahhhhh!

Re:350ppm (-1, Troll)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705905)

The reason you are seeing this crap in the press is the same reason you always see things pushed that don't match the evidence...money [nakedcapitalism.com] .

In this case several of the usual suspects, including Goldman Sachs which if anything is dirty or underhanded you just KNOW they are getting a cut, have a nice scam built around Cap & Trade, complete with shell companies and loopholes galore for their friends, it'll be a tax on everyone but the upper 5% who will be handed the money on a silver platter, the biggest reverse robin hood since the robber barons were handed the Indian lands in the 1800s so its gonna be an orgy of greed if they can get that shit passed.

Which is why i urge even those that support AGW to be against Cap & Trade, Crap & Trade is like saying "There is pollution in the world...so i get to rob your house" one does nothing to change the other, has nothing to do with the other, because the worst offenders already have their loopholes you can drive a truck through like ZERO PENALTIES for simply exporting the factories to India and China, both of whom have already said they will NOT play the crap & trade game.

So if you are for less pollution? hey so am I, what a coincidence...now explain to me how giving billions of dollars to Goldman Sachs and pals is gonna do a damned thing about that. Do not let them fool you with their press mouthpiece screaming "We have to do something!" No we do not have to do SOMETHING, we have to do SOMETHING EFFECTIVE, hell of a big difference between those two statements.

Re:350ppm (1)

hazem (472289) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706117)

plants "breath" co2 so I dont see how more co2 will harm plants.

Well, you breath oxygen, so breathing 100% pure oxygen is no problem, right? Well, actually, it is a problem if you breathe it for any prolonged period of time. Read up on hyperoxia.

It just doesn't follow that because plants need CO2 that more CO2 is better for plants... or at least the plants you want growing.

Horse excrement (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705467)

And NYC was supposed to be 3 feed underwater by 2015. Slashdot, THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!!!! Wake up. Climate change is the cry of yesterday's Chicken Little's. Fine some new apocalyptic theory to push onto people to scam them out of their liberties. This hoax has run it's course. You're boring me.

Re:Horse excrement (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705491)

And NYC was supposed to be 3 feed underwater by 2015.

It was, briefly.

Re:Horse excrement (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705865)

"And NYC was supposed to be 3 feed underwater by 2015. "

2015 hasn't happened yet - its still 2013 where I live.

Plants LIKE CO2 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705505)

Plants thrive in conditions with elevated CO2, so unless you can justify that some other side effect will hurt the plants, they should be doing better, not worse.

Re:Plants LIKE CO2 (1)

pdabbadabba (720526) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705673)

You mean like elevated temperatures, arid conditions, or being underwater?

Less water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705795)

Biggest problem is the dessert band along the equator, and the reduction in habitable area further north (earth being a globe and all, as you squeeze the habitable zone towards the poles, the area becomes less).

If you slowed down the change, then we could adapt a lot better.

I don't think the loss in physical land area caused by rising water is the major problem here.

Re:Less water (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705809)

The "dessert" band along the equator? Is that your belt?

No more CO2, or we'll run out of pie!

Re:Less water (0)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705907)

earth being a globe and all, as you squeeze the habitable zone towards the poles, the area becomes less

Not really. There are vast quantities of land presently tied up by permafrost in Northern Canada and Siberia that will become arable.

Re:Less water (0)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706011)

Yes, that desert band around the equator. I remember dealing with it the last time I was in Singapore and Indonesia. Or when I was Northern Brazil, or the Congo. That desert was covered with trees and vines and jungles, but desert nevertheless!

Carbon dioxide strikes again (0, Troll)

fazig (2909523) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705507)

Yeah, again the evil molecule of carbon dioxide the most vicious poison known to man for plants, animals and man alike, endangers our all well being.

It should be banned, right now, before it kills even more plants!

Re:Carbon dioxide strikes again (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706065)

Convince the movie studios that carbon dioxide causes increased piracy (and therefore loss of income) and you'll start to see effective strategies and International Treaties put in place to manage or even reduce it: DMCA == DRM Millennium Carbon Act; ACTA == Anti Carbon Trading Alliance; COPA == Carbon Obliges Piracy Act; ad nauseam.

Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705509)

One of the biggest unknowns here is how fast species can adapt. Perhaps some of the "doomed" species have had enough robustness and phenotypic variation built in by long-term evolution to withstand these short-term changes, even if we have no direct evidence that they can survive under the new conditions being created. Or perhaps they really are doomed.

Climate change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705521)

The naysayers won't believe it until we're living in a desert and even then they'll just say it's a bit dry.

Re:Climate change? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705599)

I'm surprised about how Slashdot seems so overwhelmingly anti-science on this issue. Only a few posts in and I've already won ""idiotic anti-global warming arguments bingo".

Re:Climate change? (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705753)

A few yeas ago a poll found that about 1/3 of Slashdotters are climate denialists. They're just a minority of loud idiots, although a minority still far too large for my liking.

Re:Climate change? (4, Insightful)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705817)

A more recent poll showed that 2/3rd of statistics are made up.

How about you get labeled a Climate Hysteric? There are too many of those for my liking.

People who don't care one way or the other are not 'denialists' they just might have diferent priorities, and not consider GW the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER, as opposed to, keeping their job, keeping their house, not getting cancer, etc.

"With us, or Against us" has been used many times in history; but it's not always true.

Re:Climate change? (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705997)

People who don't care one way or the other are not 'denialists'

Indeed; people who don't care one way or another are people who don't care one way or another, and people who don't care one way or another don't generally bother posting. People who post endless screeching copypasta rants denying overwhelming scientific evidence, on the other hand, are best described as denialists.

and not consider GW the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER, as opposed to, keeping their job, keeping their house, not getting cancer, etc.

All of these are important things. So is global warming. See, it's actually possible for many things to be important at the same time. Welcome to reality--take a look around, and be warned that some of it may be a little confusing, but it's in your interest to try to figure it out.

Re:Climate change? (-1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705761)

I'm surprised about how Slashdot seems so overwhelmingly anti-science on this issue

I've seen so many studies in the last 2 years debunking the co2 theory that there's no way the premise could be true. Yet we still see this special interest group 'science' coming out and widely promoted by the mass media. If the facts don't fit the theory, it's not the facts which are wrong.

The whole co2 climate change field is just being used to promote fear as a distraction from the truth.

Re:Climate change? (1)

rally2xs (1093023) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705629)

It doesn't matter, because there's not one D thing that we can do about it anyway. Stop burning fossil fuel? Sure, if you want to kill millions of humans, because they / we all need the fossil fuels to get along. Casting people into abject poverty is not a valid solution, either, which is what happens when you deprive them of the cheap fossil fuels. That results in an average 6.5 years shorter lifespan, and if the poverty is experienced as a child, the life shortening is not reversible. Just get over it, whatever is going to happen will happen, and we'll either adapt or we won't. I'm expecting that if push comes to shove, some serious geo-engineering projects will be undertaken, such as dykes along key seaboard areas, and we'll just lose the polar bears - who needs 'em, anyway. When the choice is dead people or dead polar bears, I'll take the dead polar bears.

Meanwhile, if we could get _this_ to work:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/solar-thermal-electrochemical-photo.html [nextbigfuture.com]

then we could actually take CO2 concentration back to before the industrial revolution. Just get prepared for the sort of winters that George Washington had to deal with at Valley Forge.

Guns don't kill people, not burning fossil fuels.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705889)

"Stop burning fossil fuel? Sure, if you want to kill millions of humans, because they / we all need the fossil fuels to get along."

Dude, just stop driving your SUV 50 miles to work each day, just so you can live in a nicer neighborhood. It won't kill anyone if you drive less.

Oh and do you really need the aircon running at 20 degrees C? Mine runs at 28 when its turned on, and nobody died yet of it. On the other hand it cuts my energy bill a heck of a lot.

" That results in an average 6.5 years shorter lifespan, and if the poverty is experienced as a child, the life shortening is not reversible."
If you spend less on fossil fuels to do the same things, you're richer and thus live longer. Being rich, is not the same as 'burning a lot of fossil fuels'! You are not putting years onto your life by driving that long daily commute. You are not putting years on your life by buying the mineral water shipped from the other ends of the earth.

"Meanwhile, if we could get _this_ to work:"
Why would you do that? If you can get mirror solar electro power to work like that, you'd use *THAT* energy instead of fossil fuels, rather than use the fossil fuels and use the solar energy to capture the carbon! But at least you're not in denial about either the problem (CO2 increase), or the cause of it (fossil fuels).
So we're at least in agreement on the key points, just not about what to do about it.

"Just get prepared for the sort of winters that George Washington had to deal with at Valley Forge."
Ahh a man with a dream! We can't slow down the acceleration, let alone the velocity, let alone reduce CO2 currently!

Re:Climate change? (1)

tinfoilhatz (2809173) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706009)

DERP!

Citation please (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705523)

ALso - co2 is not a pollutant, it is essential for plants to live which are essential for us to live...

Maybe it's slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705595)

Maybe the citation is slashdot, since this same story ran less than a week ago. But apparently on slashdot, anything aimed at generating hysteria over global warming merits a two-time appearance.

more liberal propaganda (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705535)

enough already

Re:more liberal propaganda (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705593)

enough already

I know! The next thing you know, those heathen liberals will be telling us the Earth is round and goes around the Sun! Why can't we get back to the simpler times when we worshipped the Sun and the Moon as powerful gods?!

Re:more liberal propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705823)

Are you kidding? /. all but declared themselves for Obama. Nothing but Democrat propagandists the last two presidential cycles.

Global Warming is true, and deadly .. (2, Insightful)

balise (82851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705577)

for your Grandchildren. Those ignoring or making fun of it don't care about their
descendants. I guess Slashdotters may be clever, but not very respectful of science
itself. Very sad indeed !

Re:Global Warming is true, and deadly .. (0, Troll)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705669)

Global Warming is true, and deadly for your Grandchildren

People truly concerned about the earth wouldn't be breeding more humans.

Re:Global Warming is true, and deadly .. (0)

fazig (2909523) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705735)

Yes, global warming is true. But how much did humanity actually contribute to it by emitting CO2?

In my eyes there are far worse things like methane released from massive cattle farms which also take a lot of space and require corn or other plants which could be also fed to humans, but tis is very important because we can't live without a cheeseburger at 3 am.
And there's a lot more to be really concerned about which is far worse than the small CO2 contribution humanity adds by burning fossil fuels.

Re:Global Warming is true, and deadly .. (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705883)

Well, I'm glad we've solved that problem.

Random Slashdotter has said so. No need for the PhD's and such.

Weep for the future, folks.

Re:Global Warming is true, and deadly .. (0)

fazig (2909523) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705993)

Well, I'm glad we've solved that problem.

Random Slashdotter has said so. No need for the PhD's and such.

Weep for the future, folks.

Well, I think it would be prudent to widen the field of research to other factors in climate change than only CO2. Perhaps there are such studies, but nobody in journalism seems to care about writing articles about those.
By now I've seen plenty of documentaries, which had renowned scientists in them, based on studies that debunk some of the popular CO2 theories and yet introduce other theories that were debunked in more recent studies or discoveries, and also show that papers were falsified to promote the public image of CO2 theories. For me enough reason to become a sceptic of these "everything revolves around CO2"-theories.

This might be one of the most popular "documentaries" [youtube.com] .
They speak about sun activity in this documentary, and I've already seen studies denying the link of sun activity with the recent increase in global temperature, but the rest is still quite interesting to listen to.

Re:Global Warming is true, and deadly .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705941)

Yes, global warming is true. But how much did humanity actually contribute to it by emitting CO2?

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :
Natural world: 439 GT (gigatonnes)
Humans: 29 GT
So, about 6.6%

On the flip side, amount of CO2 absorbed by nature: 450 GT. Humans don't have a number attributed to them. So, we're pushing nature about 18 GT of CO2 over its limit each year. I doubt there's reason to worry about high temperatures, though, if history (and/or Wikipedia) tells us anything.

There were apparently only three mass extinction events [wikipedia.org] "attributed" to global warming, but two [wikipedia.org] out of three [wikipedia.org] of them are inconclusive and the high temperatures could just as easily have been a side effect of the real cause of the extinctions (and with the cooling happening during the Triassic-Jurassic event, warming is not likely the cause of the extinction). The last [wikipedia.org] one also seems to be less of an extinction event and more of a minor annoyance as the only group majorly affected appear to be deep sea amoeba.

Mularkey (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705611)

I'm pretty sure some deniers conclusively proved that this is all bunk in the last article. The problem is that 1) the scientists didn't know that the station is on a volcano, 2) they did know it was on a volcano and they still put the CO2 detector inside the volcano right above the liquid-hot magma, 3) there are no ice cores on Hawaii, 4) ice cores are completely unreliable for anything anyway, 5) the CO2 monitored is only applicable to Hawaii, more specifically a few meters around the detector and does not register global CO2 levels, 6) China still exists thereby making all readings void, 7) these readings don't matter, 8) these readings are all faulty because I don't know how they get them, 9) these readings align well with other CO2 stations across the globe, and we all know that repeatable and reliable numbers are a sign of confirmation bias not accuracy, 10) these numbers are void because of Climategate probably, 11) these numbers are valid but don't matter because I don't know why, 12) plants like CO2 therefore any changes in the environment are offset by wonderful new foliage, and 13) these numbers are void because Al Gore still exists.

Why are we still even discussing this? It has been demonstratively proven false.

Re:Mularkey (0)

akboss (823334) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705717)

13) these numbers are void because Al Gore still exists.

That is it in a nut shell. Al invented the internet. Al just saved us from rebellion. Al flies in his private jet to GW conferences yet tells everyone they need to do without. Al is not your best front man if you didnt know already.

Re:Mularkey (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705779)

Gore is a profiteer and capitalist not a scientist. He's only the "front man" for people like you who can't face the evidence so create a "strawman" like saying all the data is wrong because Al Gore.

time to set my filter at -1 again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705625)

the best comments always appear at -1. especially for stupid repetitive discussions like this.

neverending FUDery (3, Interesting)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705637)

It seems that the 'talking point' of the eco-marxists today "unprecedented" levels of CO2...was actually disproven in 2008:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf [icecap.us] (from 2008)

"The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination, with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm."

This explains thoroughly that
a) it's fundamentally a fallacy to compare Vostok data with Mauna Loa CO2 results (from 3000+ m altitude), and
b) that CO2 values frequently exceeded 400 in both this and the last centuries (as high as 480 depending on how you look at it).

Re:neverending FUDery (1, Flamebait)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705737)

I immediately wrote off anything you might have had to say after the phrase "eco-marxist". Grow up.

Re:neverending FUDery (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705747)

It seems that the 'talking point' of the eco-marxists today "unprecedented" levels of CO2...was actually disproven in 2008:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf [icecap.us] (from 2008)

"The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination, with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm."

This explains thoroughly that
a) it's fundamentally a fallacy to compare Vostok data with Mauna Loa CO2 results (from 3000+ m altitude), and
b) that CO2 values frequently exceeded 400 in both this and the last centuries (as high as 480 depending on how you look at it).

Holy shit!

You found a whole paper that disproves everyone else's research!

Well, that just proves poluto-capitalism superiority!

Re:neverending FUDery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705819)

Some people will believe anything.

In any case, where was that enormous amount of CO2 entering and exiting the atmosphere coming from and going to? The graphs that Beck shows are totally implausible.

Re:neverending FUDery (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705873)

Seriously, we hope you Ameritards die a horrible horrible death.
Because you are literally to stupid to live. But you're not dragging us down with you.
Luckily, you will have destroyed yourself and become a wasteland by the end of 2020.

Sincerely,

-- The rest of the world. Every single damn person! Even some with US nationality (but sane brain).

Re:neverending FUDery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705881)

Of course I meant "two stoopid two lif". ;-P

Now go cringe in a corner, because you focusing on the typo instead of the point is really funny and sad at the same time.

Re:neverending FUDery (0)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705971)

but sane brain

No, on that. You have no reason for your relatively negative opinion on Ameritards. Such irrationality is a typical sign of insanity. But since it probably doesn't affect your day to day life, I recommend continue the treatment of ranting on the internets.

Re:neverending FUDery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706105)

yeah because china, the ex-soviet countries, and the UK aren't also burning a shitton of fossil fuels?

Re:neverending FUDery (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706029)

Some context for Beck's publications.

http://650list.blogspot.ca/2009/02/ernst-georg-beck.html

These predictions (1)

Kohath (38547) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705641)

By the year 2081, more than half of these types of predictions are likely to be shown to be more than half true.

Re:These predictions (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705763)

Your post shows a general misunderstanding of science. The hallmarks of science are fasifiability and predictability. Studies predict things so others can check the numbers and do their own calculations. By doing many calculations and comparing results (here predictions) we get a better understanding. Scientists don't do one study, predict one result, then sit back and wait for the result. The prediction is simply a statement that using these numbers and this analysis we get this result do others agree? No, you don't? Why not? Oh, that makes sense the prediction should be adjusted according to the new data and analysis. Each prediction is not it's own sure-to-be world. You're thinking of psychics who say "this will happen." Scientists just say this is likely what will happen but we'll update this prediction as new evidence comes in. Science doesn't demand every prediction be right, only that the general consensus be updated with new data.

never encountered/every day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705653)

400 ppm sounds like a lot until it is compared to the count in an exhaled breath, about 45,000 ppm.

Timeframes (5, Insightful)

Wolfling1 (1808594) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705661)

Seems we're suffering from a bit of Climate Change Fatigue... which suggests that the less than 1% of credible scientists who doubt AGW have managed to sow enough seeds of dramatic dissent for the rest of us to lose interest.

Or perhaps, it is something a little simpler in the human psyche. Whilst we bemoan politicians who have no more future vision than the end of their current term, it seems that we too are particularly short-sighted about the future of this planet. I suspect that the majority of us look little further than how we're going to satisfy the physical aspects of Maslow's Heirarchy of needs.

When our life expectancies are extended to 1000 years (or more), and we face the very real prospect of living on the planet we are currently terraforming, we may take a slightly different view. Somehow, I doubt it. Most of the people alive today will live to see an increase of 4-6 degrees C... and yet, we're far more interested in gun control and the Kardashians.

I feel sad for our children (and their children) when I think about the world they will inherit from us.

Re:Timeframes (4, Insightful)

rrohbeck (944847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705769)

Bah. You have it wrong. If you have kids you're biologically required to be optimistic. Cognitive dissonance trumps reality every time.

Re:Timeframes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705867)

Most of the people alive today will live to see an increase of 4-6 degrees C

once they retire to florida and arizona

Re: Timeframes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706021)

Just don't have children. Problem solved!

2080? Who fucking cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705705)

I'll be dead by then... Good luck suckers!

My thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705723)

I don't care. I do things for myself that have environmental benefit but I don't do it because the environment but more because it's the humane thing to do. I can't force others to do anything. I cannot bend the will of the government nor would I even if I could. I'll be dead by the time any of this stuff happens and I simply don't care what people do. So eat, drink and be merry. Human life doesn't need to continue for any real reason and I can't see any reason to think that even if we do continue as a species that it's going to matter in the long run. The more we're given the more of a bunch of assholes we become. Que sera, sera.

Button pushing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705797)

Yet another call to curtail liberty. Prove otherwise.

More FUD. It was much higher 450 million years ago (3, Informative)

scrad (1085217) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705821)

CO2 levels of more than 4000 parts per million (ppm) occurred during the Ordovician-Silurian (450 million years ago). There is also evidence of a glacial event occurring during this period. from: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/understanding-climate-change/understand-cc-long-term.aspx [climatechange.gov.au]

Re:More FUD. It was much higher 450 million years (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705937)

CO2 levels of more than 4000 parts per million (ppm) occurred during the Ordovician-Silurian (450 million years ago). There is also evidence of a glacial event occurring during this period.

from: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/understanding-climate-change/understand-cc-long-term.aspx [climatechange.gov.au]

And how were mammals handling those environmental conditions? What's that? They didn't exist yet? I'm sorry, what? Yes, apology accepted. No, no, it's okay, we put up with demonstrations of subpar intelligence around here all the time. All is forgiven. :)

Re:More FUD. It was much higher 450 million years (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705999)

Sorry, that's irrelevant. And you can't even see it. The rate of increase in CO2, and the rate of increase in temperature, is the problem. Because today's organisms (and not those of 450 million years ago), on which depend, have evolved under the stable climate of the recent past, and many will have difficulty adapting to such rapid changes. And other things, like glaciers, don't adapt--they were in equilibrium with the stable climate of the past, which is why they are now undergoing changes. Why are you so eager to accept the science that you *believe* supports your "side", and so eager to dismiss science that doesn't? That is fundamentally dishonest.

Re:More FUD. It was much higher 450 million years (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706041)

Yeah, life on earth was different then. Mamals didn't even exist, much less humans.

Re:More FUD. It was much higher 450 million years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706049)

At the time, all known life was confined to the seas and oceans.

More Big Scare (0)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about a year and a half ago | (#43705845)

More Big Scare tactics. These articles belong in the Science Fiction category so far. We don't know what's going to happen, we've never been there before, but we're assured that it's going to be bad and only by taking and transferring hundreds of billions of our tax dollars to someone else who is more Progressive than ourselves can we save us all.
HA! (because Slashdot won't let me type: bullshit)
Back in 1975 we were supposed to be freezing by now. Anyone remember that?
Take this with with an equal grain of properly salted password hashes.

Re:More Big Scare (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706113)

And yet.... your insurance company IS taking this seriously. THEY have access to a whole pile a data too showing how often floods, tornados, storm surges etc etc occur and they see a trend of them happening more often which is why insurance premiums are increasing.

You can deny all you want, they will on the other hand look after themselves and charge accordingly , and if they decide large parts of the populated USA are too high a risk they WILL pull out or make the premiums so expensive that it amounts to the same thing.

Thats is the nice side of the free market, they are free to make their own assessment, and they are. They are changing policies, making things like fences, driveways, pools, etc uninsurable, they are putting up premiums, putting up excesses.

Insurance companies are not in either camp of denial or belief in global warming, they are in the business of risk management and at the moment the facts are telling them global warming is producing higher risks, so they are managing their risks accordingly. So one way or another, those who deny global warming is happening WILL pay for it because the increased insurance costs for businesses will get passed on, lower crop yields means higher food prices, more frequent more severe storms means more social disruption and costs, higher crime, etc etc etc, all of which will cost in taxes,insurances, etc.

Thing is, if global warming is WRONG, the worst that can happen is we end up with a cleaner planet.

I can only hope this reaches politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43705885)

who actually represent us. Not their interests. But then again, if you knew the ship was already sinking because of a small hole, and you're in the middle of the ocean, would you tell anyone?

Idiocracy (1)

freedom_surfer (203272) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706059)

Reading the comments on this post today so reminds me of the movie and ideas behind Idiocracy. The future, today!

dupe, dupe, goose! (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706067)

wow, 3 dupes. Is that a record? Oh, I guess this one isn't a dupe because some idiot failed 5th grade science and doesn't understand that plants like carbon dioxide.

mod Up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43706079)

lea5t I won't

As long as the economy grows... (1)

felixrising (1135205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43706099)

Well, lets face it, the most important thing is the economy grows, and if indefinite human population growth is required to achieve this, then so be it.. who cares about anything else?!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?