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!

UN Report: Climate Changes Overwhelming

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 987

iONiUM (530420) writes "'The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.' A document was released by the IPCC outlining the current affects on climate change, and they are not good. For specific effects on humans: 'Food security is highlighted as an area of significant concern. Crop yields for maize, rice and wheat are all hit in the period up to 2050, with around a tenth of projections showing losses over 25%.'"

cancel ×

987 comments

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

Projections (2, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#46624165)

The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?

Re:Projections (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#46624185)

Citation...?

Re:Projections (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624303)

You're that dick on Wikipedia who reverted my edits!

Re:Projections (1, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#46624307)

Pages 38 and 39 of the second link in the fine summary.

Re:Projections (2)

Ichijo (607641) | about 7 months ago | (#46624647)

It looks like the observed temperatures are at the low end of the error bars of the most optimistic projection. But it's kind of hard to tell because of the thickness of the line.

Re:Projections (0, Troll)

kabaju42 (959652) | about 7 months ago | (#46624191)

Another scare report from the UN. How often do they put out a "We're all going do die" report like this?

Re:Projections (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#46624217)

How often do they put out a "We're all going do die" report like this?

As often as it takes until people like you listen?

Re:Projections (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624277)

How often do they put out a "We're all going do die" report like this?

As often as it takes until people like you listen?

We are waiting for these anti-science people to listen to the evidence of evolution first.

Re:Projections (3, Funny)

Kevoco (64263) | about 7 months ago | (#46624605)

They will have sprouted friggin' gills and still be struggling with the concept.

Re:Projections (0)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 7 months ago | (#46624281)

Or until everyone dies.

Re:Projections (1, Insightful)

JeffAtl (1737988) | about 7 months ago | (#46624481)

When they say "we're all going to die and it's already too late to do anything about it" it sort of lessens the impact.

Re:Projections (2, Insightful)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 7 months ago | (#46624561)

"As often as it takes until people like you listen?"

And yet here you sit using the same electricity that is supposed to be killing the planet to whine about it. Get rid of your car, get rid of your computer.

Nothing significant can happen unless everyone does. And here's the thing - most countries (especially poorer countries) don't give the tiniest bit of a fuck.

If everyone in America did what I'm saying it would make an impact, but A) That will never happen and B) It would just delay the inevitable, because of china etc.

So scenario A It's true and we're all fucked and can't do anything about it. Thus we're arguing over..nothing.

Scenario B It's not true and we're arguing over..nothing.

It doesn't paint the greatest picture of humanity but I'm fairly certain it's an accurate one.

Re:Projections (1)

alen (225700) | about 7 months ago | (#46624737)

not true

back in the day people used to cut entire forests down to burn the wood in the winter time and make land for farming

Re:Projections (4, Funny)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about 7 months ago | (#46624747)

So scenario A It's true and we're all fucked and can't do anything about it. Thus we're arguing over..nothing.

Science: If we can't change it, well, fuck it.

Re:Projections (1)

rwa2 (4391) | about 7 months ago | (#46624575)

Nah, that can't be the point of it... no one (nation, not person) would actually listen (or more importantly, act by passing and enforcing meaningful regulations) based on reports or projections.

It's pretty much a given that people are going to have to die on a fairly large scale for anyone to come to their senses.

These reports are pretty much just a CYA so the agencies don't get sued for not predicting this stuff later.

The people that matter, like insurance brokers, have already acted to stop covering low-lying areas. Hasn't stopped people from building on that property anyway, like those neighborhoods in Oso buried in the landslide.

So just prepare to set your thresholds by how many lives are enough to take action, and have your catalog of bandaids ready when nations are finally ready to #panicbuy.

Re:Projections (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#46624651)

Is there anywhere in North America that you can even buy flood insurance any more?

Re:Projections (1)

Drethon (1445051) | about 7 months ago | (#46624727)

Is there anywhere in North America that you can even buy flood insurance any more?

Anywhere that doesn't get flooded? Ever? Even by 1000 year floods?

Re:Projections (4, Informative)

Vermonter (2683811) | about 7 months ago | (#46624785)

Here in Vermont, a few years back they redrew the flood maps, and a large number of people ended up being added to the flood areas. This cause a lot of outcry for people who suddenly had to buy flood insurance in order to keep their mortgages. Of course, they stopped whining after Hurricane Irene hit and caused a ton of flood damage and taking out a lot of houses that had just started being covered by flood insurance...

Re:Projections (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#46624241)

Because scary reports must logically be false.

This is the basic position a pseudo-skeptic like yourself takes, right? That if a large group of scientists say "X is harmful, potentially very harmful", you're response is that they're just trying to scare you, and you can safely ignore what they have to say and keep on doing X.

Re:Projections (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 7 months ago | (#46624337)

I certainly hope that the inhabitants of Florida and the Los Angeles basin will have time to safely evacuate, before their welcome and long overdue submersion beneath the lapping waves...

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"

Re:Projections (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#46624365)

Indeed. I was modded down, so I'm assuming C'thulu has finally got mod points.

Re:Projections (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#46624437)

Wow, do the pseudo-scientific types have mod points today. Mod away, I've got karma to burn.

Re:Projections (1)

motorhead (82353) | about 7 months ago | (#46624563)

My response is "Prove it".
Their response "The dog ate my data"

Re:Projections (3, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#46624635)

1. Proof is for liquor and mathematics.
2. There is a large body of data and evidence contained in a vast number of published papers and reports. If you are incapable of reading them, that's your problem.

Re:Projections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624705)

1. Proof is for liquor and mathematics. 2. There is a large body of data and evidence contained in a vast number of published papers and reports. If you are incapable of reading them, that's your problem.

But, but, it was snowing yesterday, and the sun has some influence right?, and all the things scientists forgot to think about but I do.

Re:Projections (0)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | about 7 months ago | (#46624773)

Yet, the charts of the data on pages 38 and 39 in the second linked reports do not support the projections presented. The charts seem to indicate that temperature is not increasing as fast as the projections claim.

This is the basic position a pseudo-skeptic like y (0)

Atl Rob (3597807) | about 7 months ago | (#46624617)

Haha, you can't teach a fool! There will always be people that just don't get it. Most have been mind poisoned by the Koch bros, and of that lot, some believe the earth is flat and only 6k years old. Why bother debating with them. The concerning thing is that the brainwashed do not realize their condition. The evidence, even for laymen is beyond reproach at this point.

Re:Projections (4, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 7 months ago | (#46624655)

Yeah! The motto of the UN and any world leaders should be "Hope for the best and prepare only for the best!" Because planning for the worst-case scenario is just ASKING for trouble. Who are these people with their negative thinking about the worlds food supply? Why, that's downright irresponsible to be pessimistic like that, according to "The Secret."

Sarcasm aside, I do sorta agree with you. They know it's going to be a problem. They don't really seem to be pointing fingers which would be the next step. I realize the top carbon emitting nations run the show at the UN, so even a toothless resolution telling the US and China to fucking stop tinkering with the atmosphere is never going to get anywhere, but it doesn't seem like anyone is trying. Furthermore, the UN is against the next logical step of cleaning it up [nature.com] . They seem resistant to finding out if iron fertilization in the oceans could solve it.

So they won't make moves to prevent it and they won't make moves to allow it to be reduced. They come up with suggestions, but they're all basically "deal with the problems." For instance it encourages economic diversification in response to problems with the economy. Oh, great. Cause that's not something anyone thought to do before hand. MUCH easier than causing algal blooms in the ocean to soak up the carbon.

Re:Projections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624717)

How many studies needed to be published to overcome the well-funded skeptics and finally get people to accept that smoking is terrible for your health?

Re:Projections (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624243)

It means that you understand statistics and the UN is run by corrupt politicians who care more about personal agendas than truth.

Re:Projections (2, Insightful)

L. J. Beauregard (111334) | about 7 months ago | (#46624393)

And whats-his-name Watts, Steven Milloy and Fox "News" are in it for their own health.

Re:Projections (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46624611)

"And whats-his-name Watts, Steven Milloy and Fox "News" are in it for their own health."

No, they're in it for ours.

Thanks guys.

Re:Projections (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624315)

The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?

It means you are reading BS that does not reflect *reality*.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/... [noaa.gov]

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2014 tied with 2001 as the 21st highest for February on record, at 0.41C (0.74F) above the 20th century average of 12.1C (53.9F).

The global land surface temperature was 0.31C (0.56F) above the 20th century average of 3.2C (37.8F), tying with 1943 as the 44th highest for February on record. For the ocean, the February global sea surface temperature was 0.45C (0.81F) above the 20th century average of 15.9C (60.6F), making it the seventh highest for February on record.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the Decemberâ"February period was 0.57C (1.03F) above the 20th century average of 12.1C (53.8F), making it the eighth warmest such period on record.

Re:Projections (4, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#46624423)

Well if I am not to believe the BS from the IPCC because it doesn't reflect reality we don't need TFA, do we?

Re:Projections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624425)

The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?

Well, it either means that you are smarter than most of the worlds scientists, or that you are cherry picking data interpretations. If I were a betting man, would my money be on science or symbolset(646467)?

Re:Projections (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 7 months ago | (#46624483)

Or maybe you could read pages 38 and 39 of the executive summary of this report from the IPCC, which would be the second link in the summary.

Re:Projections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624619)

Or maybe you could read pages 38 and 39 of the executive summary of this report from the IPCC, which would be the second link in the summary.

I actually have, and it is quoted by someone else here, but I don't pretend to take that one bit out of the context and think that I can evaluate it better than all the scientists in the area. Which is also why I believe in the theory of evolution, not because there are not questions to be raised by the creationists that laymen can interpret any which way, but because of the scientist consensus on the theory fitting observable facts.

Re:Projections (2)

durrr (1316311) | about 7 months ago | (#46624433)

That the verbose description is hyped up when the data of the report is cooled down.

GDP losses was downgraded from 2-5%, to 0.2-2%. Meaning that predicted changes in GDP now too can disappear in the error bars and otherwise disappear entirely due to "unexpected growth."

Re:Projections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624445)

It means that although they have a lot of studies of what has happened,
    the models to predict the future are not very good.

They are using the quantity of present predictions to make the model story look better than it is.
Saying what will happen in 2050 indicates that they know, which they don't.

This doesn't say there is no reason for concern.
    Just that these folks are hurting their case in an attempt to get the right thing done.

Re:Projections (-1, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46624527)

"The observed temperatures are currently below the error bars of the most optimistic projection. What does this mean?"

What it means is that as evidence of any actual greenhouse warming effect from CO2 grows thinner, and contrary science continues to build momentum, and evidence of -- shall we say -- "irresponsible" handling of data by climate alarmists is mounting... the cries of gloom and doom become ever more strident and shrill.

That in itself is evidence that it is a scheme for more government control, rather than good science.

Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (1, Informative)

CajunArson (465943) | about 7 months ago | (#46624231)

Meanwhile, after you read past the end-of-the-world predictions that were likely lifted directly from one of those churches that makes a living predicting the End Times, here's a more realistic assessment from a real economist who told the IPCC to remove his name from their "summary":
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/... [joannenova.com.au]

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#46624263)

Because the first thought when confronted with a troubling scientific report is to consult an economist...

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (1, Insightful)

Bartles (1198017) | about 7 months ago | (#46624381)

No, it's a political report that presents a scientific viewpoint. At least call it what it is.

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#46624429)

I call it a report written by climatologists. You know, SCIENTISTS...

I get it. It tells you things you don't want to hear, so you have this need to cast aspersions on it.

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624511)

I call it a report written by climatologists. You know, SCIENTISTS...

I get it. It tells you things you don't want to hear, so you have this need to cast aspersions on it.

I hate those scientists, they have an agenda. They even question God's intelligent design.

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (2)

HiThere (15173) | about 7 months ago | (#46624665)

It is a report written by climatologists, but in prior reports from the same body reasonable projections have been excluded from consideration for being too extreme, so it's also a political report. Which way they are bending the studies this time I don't know. I may find out, but probably not for a month or so.

N.B.: There are a LOT of studies. You can't include all of them, not even all the ones that don't have obvious errors, and deciding which to exclude is a political decision when done under governmental supervision. Last time they excluded the extreme reports in an attempt to not appear to be crepe-hangers, and get taken seriously. It didn't work. Perhaps this time they've decided to bend the other way...or perhaps not, because I've seen reports of studies that were a LOT worse. Some of them project >6 C before the end of the century. But they were making assumptions about particulate emmissions and CO2 emmissions that CANNOT be validated, because they depend on political choices that have not yet been made. OTOH, they are right in line with the choices that have been made in the past.

P.S.: I'm quite skeptical about sequestration of CO2. I don't think it will work, and if it does work, I think it will be too expensive to use. The BEST form of sequestration is to grow forests, turn them into paper, and print books on them, with chemically treated paper so it won't decay. This doesn't add in exogenous energy costs, and storage is not a major issue. If it is, just build more libraries...and fund them to retain books. Burying CO2 can expect to have undetected leakages over a period of time, and to add significantly to the cost of generating energy. To me it looks like a boondoggle created to justify continuing to burn coal.

P.P.S.: I am not a climatologist. There are likely several studies that I've never heard of, and there may well be flaws in some of the studies that I have heard of that I didn't hear about.

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (-1, Flamebait)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46624695)

"I call it a report written by climatologists. You know, SCIENTISTS..."

But it isn't. That's a pretty blatant failure to get your facts straight.

It's a report written by politicians for other politicians. That's what the Summary for Policy Makers IS. If you knew anything at all about the IPCC reports, you would know this.

And why do you think they release the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM... it's in the very name of the linked file) before they release the actual report? Because their SPM is deliberately alarmist in nature, and people pay attention to that before looking at the actual science... if they ever do.

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (1)

L. J. Beauregard (111334) | about 7 months ago | (#46624371)

ALGORE

*chug*

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (1)

CurryCamel (2265886) | about 7 months ago | (#46624505)

here's a more realistic assessment from a real economist

As opposed to what other sort of economists?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589424/UK-professor-refuses-apocalyptic-UN-climate-change-survey.html#ixzz2x3avUrY3 [dailymail.co.uk]

Prof Tol disagrees with the comparative

Professor Tol told the BBC: You have a very silly statement in the draft summary that says that people who live in war-torn countries are more vulnerable to climate change, which is undoubtedly true.
But if you ask people in Syria whether they are more concerned with chemical weapons or climate change, I think they would pick chemical weapons - that is just silliness.

Not with the fundamentals:

Prof Tol does not dispute the view that climate change is caused by man - but he says its impact has been exaggerated.

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#46624539)

When you link to dailymail, you automatically make everyone assume you're wrong and an idiot. Just for reference. You may not be, but everyone stopped reading your post when they see the dailymail link.

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (1)

CurryCamel (2265886) | about 7 months ago | (#46624701)

That's what GP linked to aswell, just by a proxy blog.

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46624749)

Let's say that the climate change will cause people in the UK one unit of inconvenience, to Syrians, three units of inconvenience, and chemical weapons will cause Syrians thirty units of inconvenience. The problem is, you could invade Syria and destroy the chemical weapons withing months, if you wanted. That's at most fifteen unit-years of inconvenience. But those three units of inconvenience due to climate change will apparently persist in Syria for *at least* many decades, if not a century or more. That's already dozens of unit-years of inconvenience, perhaps hundreds. Also, people have a tremendous capacity for dismissing long-term problems. Perhaps asking Syrians what they are worried about, while usually valid, isn't valid universally.

Re:Meanwhile, people are bailing from the IPCC (-1, Troll)

J Story (30227) | about 7 months ago | (#46624645)

Meanwhile, after you read past the end-of-the-world predictions that were likely lifted directly from one of those churches that makes a living predicting the End Times, here's a more realistic assessment from a real economist who told the IPCC to remove his name from their "summary": http://joannenova.com.au/2014/... [joannenova.com.au]

People here tend to forget that the UN is filled to the brim with corruption. That their human rights body is chaired by countries with the worst human rights records -- and worse, that this is allowed to continue -- demonstrates why everything that comes out of the UN should be looked at with the greatest scepticism.

Where are the farmers? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624245)

One would think that agricultural lobbies worldwide, which are often quite politically powerful, would be screaming their heads off about climate change affecting crop yields. Have I simply failed to notice or have they been silent on the issue?

Re:Where are the farmers? (2, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 7 months ago | (#46624311)

agricultural lobbies

Higher temperatures in the historical record have been associated with a higher total biomass on the planet. Melt some of the Antarctic, get some more clouds in the atmosphere, grow wheat in the Sahara and grapes in Greenland - I'm guessing the Ag lobbies aren't too worried (though they should be angling for some subsidies to "help them survive" by now).

Re:Where are the farmers? (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 7 months ago | (#46624399)

Our food crops are all massively bio-engineered. If it wasn't gene-tinkered, it was bred selectively for thousands of years.

They are all optimized for colder temperatures. We will may end up with greater biomass, but with less food.

As for why the agri-business isn't complaining is that it hasn't started affecting them yet. They have never been very good at long-term thinking.

Re:Where are the farmers? (2)

PapayaSF (721268) | about 7 months ago | (#46624583)

Our food crops are all massively bio-engineered. [...] They are all optimized for colder temperatures. We will may end up with greater biomass, but with less food.

So you're saying that food crops, when grown in conditions a few degrees warmer and with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will be less productive? I think operators of greenhouses would disagree with you.

Re:Where are the farmers? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#46624707)

Warmer temperatures mean more desertification and changes in rain belts. Try to imagine large parts of the American grain belt suddenly becoming a lot more difficult to irrigate. The US midwest agricultural system is built on borrowed water and borrowed time.

Re:Where are the farmers? (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 7 months ago | (#46624769)

They are already becoming more difficult to irrigate. Some of the "land pre-empted by the government for ecological preserves" in the San Joquin Valley that the farm lobbies are complaining about was already selected by the agribusinesses that sold it to the government as land that they would need to stop using because of salinity increase. (This happens when you irrigate dry land over a long time. Exact timing depends on lots of things. Periodic really wet years prolong the usefulness, e.g., and water heavy with minerals decreases the useful life.)

Re:Where are the farmers? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#46624779)

Sadly, their controlled and very much unnatural greenhouses don't cover the open fields, now do they?

Re:Where are the farmers? (1)

OFnow (1098151) | about 7 months ago | (#46624577)

In 2013 (I think) a Fortune magazine article (I recollect) discussed the serious weather changes in the US midwest with farmers there. The farmers know the climate there is changing and are preparing for continuing changes, but the farmers deny it is "climate change."

No Worries.. Grand Solar Minimum is on the way. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624259)

The sun has three cycles... an 11 year cycle, and 80 year cycle, and a 200 year cycle. we are starting to dip into the 200 year solar minimum.. this affects solar radiant output. Check with NASA if you don't believe me. Have you wondered why this winter was colder than normal for the Northern Hemisphere ?

It's coming.. a cool down.

This is why spring weather is late too.

It won't be long until the Oceans cool down too. Once that happens the Icecaps will refreeze.

Re:No Worries.. Grand Solar Minimum is on the way. (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 7 months ago | (#46624355)

Yeah! Mongol invasions over the ice bridge to Siberia! Like the GOOD OLD days!

Re:No Worries.. Grand Solar Minimum is on the way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624369)

This is great, because it costs me a lot less to heat up my apartment than to cool it down.

I hate summer. Then again, I hate winter.

Re:No Worries.. Grand Solar Minimum is on the way. (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 7 months ago | (#46624473)

I just hate my apartment.

nuclear winter in north Korea may also happen (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 7 months ago | (#46624675)

nuclear winter in north Korea may also happen

Climate change conferences in 2014 (0, Flamebait)

Trachman (3499895) | about 7 months ago | (#46624283)

I have found one non-scientific observation about climate change conferences, which I am quoting in full: "I just Googled 'climate change conferences 2014': New York - Sep. Beijing - May. Peru - Dec Brazil - May. Iceland - Jun. Bonn - Mar. Las Vegas - Jul. Queensland - Sep/Oct. Venezuela - Nov. By then I got bored. It would appear that the best way to see the world on expenses and rack up plenty of air-miles is to become a 'Climate Change Expert'.

Re:Climate change conferences in 2014 (4, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 7 months ago | (#46624347)

Who exactly do you think gets 'expenses'?

I will give you a hint, pro-climate change scientists tend to be funded by universities and in some cases governments.

Deniers tend to be funded by Exxon, and their like.

So tell, me who gets tot see the world on expenses - the deniers or the scientists?

If you can't see the answer than that tells me who is funding your internet connection. After all the deniers have expressly admitted paying people to spread lies.

we're all effed (5, Interesting)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 7 months ago | (#46624317)

we're all effed. even if we do an aggressive CO2 reduction in emissions, we won't get emissions down to sustainable levels by 2050. Then, it will take decades for the CO2 air concentration to reach sustainable levels. and this assumes we don't get an explosion in emissions from developing countries.

So we have 80 years of unmitigated climate change ahead of us. pretty much everybody reading this will die before there's a possibility of things improving. sorry to be a debbie downer, but these are no longer dire warnings of what might happen unless we take action, they're explanations of what will happen due to past inaction. hide yo wife, hide yo kids, hide yo husbands, cuz things are gonna start changing.

Re:we're all effed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624363)

OMFG RUN TO THE HILLS

I am going to leave the office, rape the hottest bitch out there and kill myself, tyvm for the heads up good sir.

Geologic Ice Age (-1, Flamebait)

nefus (952656) | about 7 months ago | (#46624333)

How can we be living in a geologic ice age and be worried about global warming? And I watched a show on science channel the other night that said trees were becoming less dominant (giving way to grasses like bamboo) because the co2 level were so low. It makes little sense to me, it's either one or the other.

Re:Geologic Ice Age (2, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#46624383)

You could, you know, if you felt like, stop watching television read the report, and other associated materials.

I know, it's a lot of work, and it's just a lot easier to repeat what you've heard.

Don't Worry (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624341)

Don't worry. Big Oil has assured me that these "scientific" studies are all hokum. We're fine. Please keep burning carbon fuels. Thanks.

Climate Denial (3, Interesting)

brit74 (831798) | about 7 months ago | (#46624431)

Wow, the climate deniers are out in force on Slashdot today. Out of curiousity, are you paid? Do you all get instant alerts whenever the subject of climate is posted on Slashdot, like the Digg Patriots? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Climate Denial (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624487)

As opposed to the Tree-hugger Liberation Army, which is apparently paid to do the exact opposite of what you have described?

No, The Truth is finally coming out (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624551)

More people are finally realizing that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a farce pushed by the Totalitarians (both far Left and far Right) to gain control of the World. Those that subscribe to AGW want to run every aspect of everybody's lives with the AGW people in charge. And the UN is the place where these petite-dictators have the most power or at least think they do.

Re:Climate Denial (-1, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#46624621)

Right, because you're different ... and by different I mean exactly the same except for the other team.

Give me a break. This retarded report says the world is going to end and theres absolutely nothing thats going to stop that no matter how hard we try.

Guess what, theres no point in me giving a shit then.

Next time you want to spread some FUD, at least have the intelligence to not spread so much bullshit as to shoot yourself in the foot in the process.

When you write ignorant reports like this, clearly politically motivated by the fact that their own data contradicts the report .... well, its pretty hard to get anyone to give a flying fuck what you have to say.

Theres a story you should check up on, something about a boy who cried wolf.

Re:Climate Denial (-1, Troll)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | about 7 months ago | (#46624677)

So if someone disagrees with you (or the article) they are immediately labeled a climate denier?
Way to win an argument, might as well call them racist while you're at it.

Re:Climate Denial (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624725)

Think of it like the evolution debate; some 'deniers' think there's still a debate, while the rest of us are interested in the details of how it works.

Re:Climate Denial (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624753)

That's right, the climate at every single square mile on the Earth has never changed in 4.5 billion years except in the past 50 years.

Report Believable, but what to do? (3, Interesting)

foxalopex (522681) | about 7 months ago | (#46624499)

I have always found it interesting that a lot of folks would prefer that such problems didn't exist when even simple logic seems to point to the fact that it is human caused. Common sense tells you that if a billion of us start to burn things it might have some negative effects. Heck, I remember as a kid we use to dig holes in a riverbank for fun and over time with a few sticks we managed to amazingly reshape the entire riverbank. Granted maybe I shouldn't be so hard on folks who refuse to believe in it. After all if it doesn't directly affect me and I can't do anything about it, it doesn't exist right?

The real problem is what to do about it. It probably isn't all gloom and doom. The UN is making a huge deal of it because let's face it there's a LOT of third world and poor countries out there where even a small shift in climate would kill millions. The UN represents ALL countries. For us richer nations it will probably be uncomfortable, maybe an inconvenience at worst so long as serious world war doesn't break out. Still I wonder how morally bad we would feel if we knew that say saving a little now could save millions in another country. Sadly I suspect in the end greed will win out and we'll likely take the difficult road in life. It seems to sadly be what we do best. Wait until things get bad or someone dies, then try to fix it if we can.

Re:Report Believable, but what to do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624729)

The what to do about it is easy from the UN point of view.
Poorer Nations should be compensated by the Wealthy Nations.
Americans: prepare for the 50 to 80 % tax after income tax is deducted to compensate the poor nations for your carbon sins.

Re:Report Believable, but what to do? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624765)

Those of you who are Man Made Climate Change believers, who are still using products contributing to the carbon problem, feel free to start donating your income to 3rd world country's now rather than wait until the tax man puts a metaphorical gun to your head.

game's changed already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624517)

I happen to have some contacts that go fairly high. From what I gathered, at least some parts of the 1% have already given up on stopping climate change and have moved on to preparing for it, up to and including preparing to physically move.

So if you see the next draconian laws passed, or wonder why our military is being propped up much more than we need, ask yourself if it might be for the future, not the now.

(posting anon for obvious reasons)

Self-fulfilling prophesies (-1, Troll)

istartedi (132515) | about 7 months ago | (#46624523)

Radical right-wing Christians believe in the Apocalypse, and vote for military build-ups and wars of choice. Radical left-wing UN types believe in AGW, and have the ability to fuck up our food supply and create wars too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "If you continuously prophesy doom, you will eventually be correct".

Note, not happy, satisfied, productive or anything really virtuous... just "correct".

Re:Self-fulfilling prophesies (2)

guises (2423402) | about 7 months ago | (#46624745)

"If you continuously prophesy gloom, you will eventually be correct".

"If you continuously prophesy spoon, you will eventually be correct".

"If you continuously prophesy loom, you will eventually be correct".

Get over it. Lean to tell the difference between a prediction based on evidence and a prophesy based on wishful thinking.

The climate is changing, it's colder than normal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624535)

And humans have zero to do with the climate.

Unequal impact around the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624537)

The UN keeps arguing how it will be a disaster for everyone but almost sadly it won't be. What's going to happen is that poor populous nations are going to be affected worst. The refugees will try to move to wealthier areas like China, Europe, or the US, who's industrial farming and infrastructure can keep up with the changes. If the situation gets as bad as the UN claims the flow of refugees will turn into a flood, borders will be closed, and the poor affected by climate change are going to die. I hate to say it but no nation is going to endanger their citizens to allow millions of starving refugees in, even if it means watching them die on the doorstep. Anyone who thinks the industrial nations wouldn't use force to keep refugees out is sadly mistaken. Meanwhile it will be mostly business as usual in the industrialized world but with some extra seawalls.

More BS from the group that brings you BS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624565)

Why do they continue to beat this dead-horse. Everyone knows its complete and utter BS. It's been proven to be BS by several studies - yet the media continues to trumpet it for those too young to remember all of the hulabuloo about the Impending Ice-Age back in the 70's - now instead of "Global Warming" it's "Climate Change" - well, the climate had been changing for the last 4.3 billion years and will continue to do so without any help from humans.

We are like a pimple on an ant's butt... When it comes to our effect on how, when, and to what extent the climate will change...

Irreversible? (1)

cogeek (2425448) | about 7 months ago | (#46624569)

Well, the report says the effects are irreversible, so does this mean we can finally stop worrying about it now?

There's Money to Be Made (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 7 months ago | (#46624597)

I wonder how many corporations are already looking to make a ton of money if the environment does collapse. Look for billionaires investing in water reservoirs, fishing farms, algae growing technology. They are counting on the deaths of hundreds of millions. Where there's death, there's profit!

Slashdot's daily rothschild global warming story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624607)

Dont enrich the private bankers and the Rothschild's with their carbon credit schemes any further

source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdqNds9pNuI

Slashdot must be getting a check from a Rothschild/Banker subsidiary, running these stories by totally discredited scientific organizations. It's like slashdot totally ignored the fact that the IPCC are complete liars.

But if you repeat a lie enough people will believe it.

Where is the line? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624653)

Please define exactly what percentage of climate change is man made and what percentage is non man made.

Re:Where is the line? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 months ago | (#46624743)

Why, are exact numbers important? If I have a chunk of uranium in front of me, and I can't point to each individual atom and state when it will decay, does that make radioactive decay wrong?

Is this what you're left with, moving the goal posts to impossible places that no theory, no matter how comprehensive and accurate, could hope to provide an answer to, and then say "See, I knew you were wrong?"

You're like the Creationists I used to debate. Flaming morons who would say things like "If you can't show me a video of a fish evolving into land animal, evolution is wrong!"

don your tin-foiled hats kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624663)

the climate change conspiracy theorists are out in force today

Climate shift cannot be denied. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624691)

We just had the first winter in the midwest that was even remotely close to our norm in 26 years.

That's right, 26 years, 1 "normal" winter.

We'll finally have the right amount of ground moisture for crops after having near drought conditions for years.
We'll finally see our water tables rise more than a smidge this spring.
Hoping we don't have another record high summer that will destroy the crops.

Go head, naysay all you want while making money hand over fist - fat lot of good that money will do you when you can't go out and grow a crop on your own now will it?

If it keeps going, only the farmers will eat, all you fatcats will starve to death unless you figure out how to eat money.

Declining crop yields (4, Insightful)

Amigan (25469) | about 7 months ago | (#46624709)

Assuming the projections are correct, wouldn't it make sense to eliminate using maize (corn in the US) as an additive to gasoline? When 30%+ of the corn currently being planted in the US is done so to get the Ethanol subsidy, it removes quite a bit from the food supply. I do not claim that all would be planted for food (corn price would plummet), but arable land is being used to for this 'not green' fuel additive. I say 'not green' because even the UN [tinyurl.com] has acknowledged that the use is counterproductive.

Evidence of collusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46624763)

What about all the evidence mounting that the statistics and data used were being fudged by the very scientists touting the problem. Not much of it is standing up to impartial peer review, and anyone who dares mention that is blasted into silence or ridiculed into exiting the debate. Hell, how about the fact that it was the coldest fucking winter I remember in my 40-years. but go ahead and tell me how Manhattan will be underwater when I'm ready to retire, I like fiction.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?