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!

US Climate Report Says Global Warming Impact Already Severe

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the but-it-was-cold-yesterday dept.

Earth 627

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: "Darryl Fears reports in the Washington Post on the U.S. government's newest national assessment of climate change. It says Americans are already feeling the effects of global warming. The assessment carves the nation into sections and examines the impacts: More sea-level rise, flooding, storm surge, precipitation and heat waves in the Northeast; frequent water shortages and hurricanes in the Southeast and Caribbean; more drought and wildfires in the Southwest. 'Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snow melt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation.' The report concludes that over recent decades, climate science has advanced significantly and that increased scrutiny has led to increased certainty that we are now seeing impacts associated with human-induced climate change. 'What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now. While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.'"

cancel ×

627 comments

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

sigh (1, Informative)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 5 months ago | (#46932339)

It's Weather, not Climate.

Re:sigh (-1, Troll)

XanC (644172) | about 5 months ago | (#46932349)

Anything that advances the anthropogenic global warming agenda is climate. Anything that doesn't is weather. Keep up!

Re:sigh (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932363)

I hope your F-150 is hit by a tornado.

Re:sigh (2)

XanC (644172) | about 5 months ago | (#46932461)

It's an F-350. It's tornado-proof.

Re:sigh (3, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | about 5 months ago | (#46932509)

so you hope my F-150 is hit with an F5? well F1 you!!

Re:sigh (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 months ago | (#46932467)

See, this is why I don't think global warming matters much after all. We're collectively incapable of preventing it because our minds just aren't made to care about long-term issues that can only be understood analytically. But by the same token, when thousands of people die and trillions of dollars are wasted unnecessarily, we also won't care about that, because it will happen over many decades, and we'll never know for sure which individual people died unnecessarily, or by what percentage our bank balances would have been larger without global warming, and anyways the TV reporting will be interesting to watch and we can fly Old Glory over the wreckage and take pictures of stuffed animals in the rubble and so forth. So, it's all good.

Re:sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932517)

I can't go to my VP and request that I don't be put on a project because it's too hard -- why is that acceptable here?

Re:sigh (2)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 5 months ago | (#46932683)

Funnily enough, a large amount of people seem to care..... I care. I bet that guy over there cares too. Plenty of people are taking everyday action to help, even if in small ways. So, basically, you're making excuses because that's easier than caring, let alone doing small things that aren't even that hard.

Re:sigh (5, Insightful)

microbox (704317) | about 5 months ago | (#46932743)

We could fix this problem easily with barely any significant change to our style of life. Sure there will be winners and loser, and the losers will be big oil/coal companies -- some of the most powerful institutions in the world -- and that's why nothing is being done. It is really easy to throw mud and claim there is "confusion" on whether AGW is happening. Meanwhile, they tell themselves a story about how CO2 isn't a pollutant, and doing anything would be communism, and therefore morally wrong.

AGW is easy to solve compared to the little lies we tell ourselves about what is moral, in order to protect our little empires.

Re:sigh (1)

SnapShot (171582) | about 5 months ago | (#46932797)

I don't know if that's totally true. I put a non-trivial portion of my salary into a 401k every month because I've been told, repeatedly, that to be old and poor is much less fun than being old and middle class. Why wouldn't I make the same decision to act now so that my elderly years are less impacted by climate change?

Re:sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932945)

Because your 401k invests in hydrocarbon companies which heavily lobby to keep up the status quo.

But you make a good point about some people considering the long term.

Re:sigh (1, Insightful)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 5 months ago | (#46933039)

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

No one can predict the future.

The only thing you can accurately predict about the future is that it won't be what you expect. It will surprise you in a million different ways. Issues which seem very important today won't mean jackshit in the future. And issues that seem insignificant today could be very important then. You can construct every potential doomsday and utopian scenario that you like, but the future will somehow defy all of them and be something entirely different.

Re:sigh (-1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#46932581)

The science is in, has been for decades. I'm not sure what your problem is. Terminal stupidity? Cowardliness?

Re:sigh (2, Informative)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 5 months ago | (#46932747)

The science was in for "peak oil" scare all the way back to 70s and the same kinds of people were calling deniers "stupid" and "cowards" and calling for urgent massive government spending on green projects and massive destructive regulation of job creating industries as a response. 45 years later and the peak oil has been exposed as a hoax, only for global warming to take its place.

Re:sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932839)

Gas prices sure show that peak oil has happened, especially post 2008. We also have passed peak coal and are burning lignite (the absolute dirtiest coal there is) because the "good" stuff is all gone.

The problem is that we have two factions. One hates growth and new energy solutions with a passion, the other wants to charge as much as they can. Both sides are the reason why we are still dealing with $4 gas instead of hydrogen cells or usable batteries as our main source of fuel for transportation, similar with why we are still burning coal instead of moving to long term energy sources like thorium based nuclear, or even tossing money at workable fusion.

However, regardless of the two factions at work, we have passed peak coal. We have passed peak oil. To make up for that, farmers find it lucrative to turn their corn into ethanol rather than use it for food, which is why food prices have tripled in the past few years.

It would be nice to see the blame game stopped... but realistically the only thing we can do as individuals is deploy solar panels, or if lucky a wind turbine or two in rural areas.

Re:sigh (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 5 months ago | (#46932985)

You don't know what peak oil is.

We continue to produce more oil, and find more deposits to replace the oil we have used.

Will we hit it eventually? Yes
But we have been supposedly about to hit it any day now for the last 30 years, and right now it is still significantly distant in the future that it is not coming soon.

As soon as alternative energy gets more mature, and/or oil prices continue to rise because of production costs, oil demand will drop.

But not because we ran out.

Re:sigh (2, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#46932963)

Peak (US) oil happened. It's part of why we're doing the whole hydraulic fracturing thing.

The historical data of actual oil prices maps pretty damn well to the supposedly "bogus" Hubbert curve.

Re:sigh (4, Informative)

Smidge204 (605297) | about 5 months ago | (#46932983)

Oil production has been plateauing despite more drilling in even more remote areas and deeper waters, with new methods of extraction being deployed (shale fracking - it's not just for gas y'know). We keep drilling more holes just to keep up with the diminishing returns.

The quality of the crude has declined, and it's gotten so bad in the past few years that now tar sands are economically viable because there's no place else to get it.

Or did you think "peak oil" means it would all run out in one night?
=Smidge=

Re:sigh (2)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about 5 months ago | (#46933019)

Peak oil is not a hoax - it's mathematical fact. It'll happen at some point as the resources of this world are not limitless. Rising cost/barrel means some sources which are not financially viable become viable (as happened with the oil sands in Alberta). Fracturing will generate a lot of production in the short term but they are not long term sources.

While we have not hit peak oil, we have hit peak oil per capita (back in 1979).

Re:sigh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932805)

Yep, because science is FACT, it is undeniable proof that has never been falsified or tampered with.

I'm sure what your problem is, you're a lotard.

Re:sigh (1)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 5 months ago | (#46932649)

You know, climate effects weather.... That's kind of the point. One is a subset of the other.

Just because it's snowing (weather) doesn't mean the globe (climate) is getting colder. Whereas if the global climate WAS getting colder, we WOULD see weather effects. Pretty much opposite the ones that we're seeing I suppose.

Anyway.....

Re:sigh (2, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#46932907)

Who the fuck mods this +anything, much less "interesting"?

Aside from the fact that it's a wildly ignorant and blindly regurgitated talking point that we've all seen a trillion times, it fails to address the even remotely basic question of what this report actually studied, which is about long term trends outside of the inter-annual noise levels, of specific classes of negative climatic events like flooding and drought.

How does anyone see something that profoundly and purposely ignorant of the very basic of what is being discussed and go "oh how clever!". I need someone to explain to me what possible mental process leads to this kind of post being treated as anything other than purposeful flamebait that adds less than zero to the discussion.

Help me out here.

Re:sigh (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46932591)

Oh yeah, let's squabble about terminology. It's also not climate change, it is ... what was it? I forgot the current buzzword.

That's the real problem, don't worry about the climate. Oh, sorry, weather.

Re:sigh (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 5 months ago | (#46933017)

The climate man on the TV said we are going to have severe drought today and tomorrow, followed by floods on Wednesday, then an ice age will set in by this weekend.

Re:sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932637)

The need to make up their minds if current conditions are simply weather or not weather. When 10-15 year cooling trends, lesser numbers of hurricanes and tropical storms are cited then that's just weather. But when those same conditions are cited in their studies then it's called climate change. They would actually have some credibility is they wouldn't lie, practice what they preach and dump high profile individuals who are profiting from "Goring" the public, LOL.

Re:sigh (4, Informative)

Layzej (1976930) | about 5 months ago | (#46932769)

Cooling trend? Not sure where you come up with that. Here is the temperature trend over the last 15 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... [woodfortrees.org]

That's a change of + 0.18 C over the period. That is a rather large increase for 15 years.

Re:sigh (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#46933027)

"15 years" worked for them last year, because 1998 was an outlier for global temperature. If you the hottest year ever referenced as a starting point, you might have cause to raise concerns about intentionally deceitful cherry-picking.

Re:sigh (1)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46932793)

The data covers decades, so it is climate, not weather.

...but why ?! we didn't know! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932369)

"the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases"

Oh... right.... nevemind!

Re:...but why ?! we didn't know! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932437)

Human induced? Outlaw beans!

Frequent hurricanes? (5, Insightful)

dicobalt (1536225) | about 5 months ago | (#46932383)

It looks like they are having a hard time discerning predictions and actual events. The 2013 Atlantic season had ZERO major hurricanes, and only TWO total hurricanes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932475)

And you don't think that's weird?

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932539)

That's why they changed it to "Global Climate Change". Literally every possible observation is confirmation!

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (3, Insightful)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 5 months ago | (#46932673)

It didn't change. Global warming and climate change are two distinct things. Climate change is the result of global warming.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | about 5 months ago | (#46932547)

You probably should read this book [sciencenews.org] .

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (1, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about 5 months ago | (#46932553)

not at all, it's happened before. And there was this little thing in the 1930s called the "dust bowl", guess that hot and dry spell was caused by model-T emissions. And sea level rise has been going on for 12,000 years since the last ice age, and for much of that time at a greater rate than now.

This chicken littles have lost what little credibility they might have had, it's sad because there are so many other downsides to carbon pollution that are quite verifiable in the here and now.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 5 months ago | (#46932607)

Actually, the Dust Bowl was mostly caused by human actions, but please don't let _facts_ cause you to pull your head out of the sand.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (2)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 5 months ago | (#46932711)

What he said. The dust bowl WAS caused by human actions. I doubt you'll look it up though to correct your own ignorance, so I'll tell you what happened. We overfarmed the shit out of the soil. Also, Deep plowing killed the grasses that were holding the topsoil in place. When combined with a drought, the topsoil just... blew away. Oops.

Yes, it's sad.... I agree.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 5 months ago | (#46932871)

Nice how you put words in his mouth. He never said Dust Bowl wasn't caused by human actions. He said Dust Bowl wasn't caused by fossil fuel emissions.

Dust Bowl was caused by newly-arrived white farmers uprooting all the native prairie grasses that were drought-resistant and replacing them with cereal crops that weren't so drought resistant. It had nothing to do with carbon emissions or global warming.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (4, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about 5 months ago | (#46932905)

Actually, the Dust Bowl was mostly caused by human action

We must stop Global Humanning!

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46932895)

You might want to read up on the dust bowl a bit. It is well understood that human activity caused it. Without the human activity, it would still have been dry, but the topsoil wouldn't have blown away in a giant dust cloud. But for that, nobody would even remember it today.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (2)

Layzej (1976930) | about 5 months ago | (#46932955)

I notice you didn't include a source, and I think I know why.

Sea level was rising 12,000 years ago when we entered the current inter-glacial, but it had been stable for the last 8000 years

http://ourchangingclimate.word... [wordpress.com]

- until now. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/... [noaa.gov]

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 5 months ago | (#46932569)

Don't worry, next year when there are 10 category 5 storms he'll downplay that too. Honestly though it's not climate unless you are talking decades as the smallest unit of measurement.

Insurance rates on the Gulf coast are going to go through the roof. Too bad all the people that made their money in oil will move out and leave behind all the poor to take the pain. Insurance rates in Florida are now subsidized by the state because of Hugo and a couple other major Hurricanes in the 90's, that just might be the norm in the future along the entire Gulf coast and US eastern seaboard.

Glad I live inland in the west, we'll just run out of water rather than be drowned in it.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (4, Insightful)

JudgeFurious (455868) | about 5 months ago | (#46932647)

I live on the Gulf coast and I've been hearing that insurance rates are going to go through the roof my entire life. There's more development on the Gulf coast now than there ever was before and the vast majority of that isn't owned by all the poor people being left behind to "take the pain".

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | about 5 months ago | (#46932731)

Hum. I did a quick google for "accumulated cyclone energy"
http://policlimate.com/tropica... [policlimate.com]

I don't see any particular upward trend there.
I'd guess that 2014 isn't going to be that dramatic.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932599)

This is part of the problem. The people who predict this stuff say that it is going to be a bad year, then the exact opposite happens. Or they make wild claims like average temps are going to rise X degrees in the next 30 years, but then 40 years later they only go up a small fraction of that figure. It makes it look like they don't know what they are doing, and fuels the other side of the argument. Someone needs to tell these fools to stop making predictions, and just report the facts.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932667)

I've lived in Florida for 30 years. I don't think that's weird.

if it's weird, then no need to worry (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 5 months ago | (#46932801)

Let's pretend that a tiny tiny sampling of hurricane frequency matters a whit.

If so, then plainly climate change is REDUCING the frequency of hurricanes. So then why again should we panic about climate change if in fact it makes coastal life calmer?

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932523)

The 2013 season was abnormally mild, but it followed two consecutive seasons in which abnormally strong storms (Irene and Sandy) took an unusual path up the coast to the Northeast. Shortly after Irene in 2011, we also had a highly unusual October snowstorm that wiped out the power for weeks in Connecticut and several other New England states.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (3, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 5 months ago | (#46932589)

Come on, this is Newscience. Predictive ability of a theory has no relevance anymore. All you have to do is keep issuing more and more dire warning and lots of press releases, backed by a consensus. In Newscience, if you repeat a mantra often enough, it becomes true.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932925)

I like how someone on Slashdot pretends to know about science.

The people who inhabit this site are overwhelmingly computer 'scientists', engineers, and mathematicians. None of whom have the slightest clue how real science is actually done.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 months ago | (#46932613)

And? oh, you think a single cherry picked data point some how disqualifies decades of reporting and science? Your willful ignorance has moved form cute, to annoying. Time to stop.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932789)

Spot on. This is exactly like the morons who proudly exclaim "So much for global warming!!" after every winter storm. Meanwhile, that storm took place in a year that set another record high for average global temperature.

Re:Frequent hurricanes? (2)

Tailhook (98486) | about 5 months ago | (#46932849)

Hurricanes impacting the US have been on the decline [wordpress.com] for decades. The warmists wanted to start naming hurricanes after congressional "deniers" in 2013. Only problem was we didn't get any. At least none worth trying to use for political demagoguery.

bleh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932409)

This is form the same government that can't accurately report unemployment numbers, GDP, Cost of Bills, Budget, Assets, etc.

Very one sided (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932425)

It's extremely difficult to accept at face value a report that says every possible outcome from climate change is bad.

Especially when it comes from an administration that campaigned on the theme of change.

Several of the items they cite are not even principally related to climate change, but to population and
population density increases, and to past fire suppression policies. People being people, not people changing the climate.

Re:Very one sided (1)

Layzej (1976930) | about 5 months ago | (#46933013)

Increased warming, drought, and insect outbreaks, all caused by or linked to climate change, have increased wildfires and impacts to people and ecosystems in the Southwest. Fire models project more wildfire and increased risks to communities across extensive areas.

Put tariffs on China (2)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 5 months ago | (#46932445)

The flood and crop damage we are experiencing are covered by federal insurance programs, but the extra damage is caused by growing emissions. We should not be raising premiums in response to this, but rather we should impose climate damage tariffs on imports from countries that are increasing emissions to try to gain advantage in world markets. GATT Article XX provides for this. http://www.wto.org/english/tra... [wto.org] Using greenhouse gas emissions as a weapon to disadvantage our agricultural exports and damage our manufacturing infrastructure near flood plains must be stopped.

Re:Put tariffs on China (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about 5 months ago | (#46933041)

With only 52% of our (US) GDP our besty friend green revolution China is now burning almost as much coal as the rest of the planet combined [time.com] . Since the graph ends with 2012 the lines may have crossed by now.

Global warming. Hehe (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932455)

Yep, global warming impact is severe, alright. Coldest winter in recent memory, that warming sure is a bitch!

Seriously, if they don't quit tilting at the global warming gravy train. They are going to destroy our economy and simply view this as a way to gain power over the energy industry. Trust me, it always, always comes back that - money and power.

The climate hasn't changed; the weather does. All of the blips on the graphs the tenured professors in their ivory towers point to are motherfucking WEATHER. Stop trying to frighten people.

Re:Global warming. Hehe (0)

whistlingtony (691548) | about 5 months ago | (#46932729)

Ow my brain..... I think I'm going to stop trying to correct you people. It just hurts too much.

Re:Global warming. Hehe (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#46932857)

Figure out the problem like Max Planck did and stop worrying. There's nothing any of us can do about it, sadly.

Re:Global warming. Hehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46933009)

I'll see your cold winter and raise you a hot summer.

Hottest Summer in history in Australia right now. 112 degrees in Adelaide. Tar melting on the roads. Giant forest fires. Power grid teetering on collapse.

So by your own standards climate has changed.

thanks for playing

Also reviewed by the Bad Astronomer (3, Informative)

dovf (811000) | about 5 months ago | (#46932481)

This report is also reviewed [slate.com] over at Slate by the Bad Astronomer.

Re:Also reviewed by the Bad Astronomer (1)

freak0fnature (1838248) | about 5 months ago | (#46932707)

Wait, the graph shows humans caused global cooling between 1890 and 1920? How did we do that?

Re: Also reviewed by the Bad Astronomer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932765)

And the report is shit, because it conveniently ignores the data from the last seventeen years as it would expose the flaws in these false models. It shouldn't come as a surprise, because it's featured in a site that is also shit and brain-damaging. Slashdot is going down the drain since it changed hands, and the new proprietors have hijacked the site to take advantage of slashdot's glorious reputation to feed you with pseudocience junk and marxist propaganda. Good bye, slashdot. I leave this sinking ship and move to Ars Technica.

You make a very compelling argument, but... (1, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | about 5 months ago | (#46932507)

La La La La La La! I'm not listening!

Hmm.... (5, Informative)

King_TJ (85913) | about 5 months ago | (#46932545)

Interesting that just today, I also read this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]

It claims that a full 1/3rd. of the warming in the 1990's, on record, was actually due to water vapor in the air, vs. CO2 emissions and the like. Yes, it's not saying this is cause to deny the phenomenon, but it shows how we're still really in the early stages of understanding the details..... The statements of fact about exactly what's happening are largely premature.

Re:Hmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932703)

Yes, water vapor acts as a pretty strong greenhouse gas. One of the troubling possibilities that we face is that water vapor can become a feedback in the climate system--water vapor in the atmosphere causes warming, warm air can hold more water vapor, which leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere and more warming, and so on. There are other potential climate system feedbacks, but this is an important one to try to understand.

Re:Hmm.... (2)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#46932991)

It actually makes perfect sense. You warm things up a bit and that gets more water vapor in the air causing further warming.

I can't be bothered to care (5, Funny)

JudgeFurious (455868) | about 5 months ago | (#46932555)

My 2014 Mustang GT (Premium) has 425 horsepower and runs like an ape with his ass on fire. I'm grilling steaks this weekend and drinking beer on the deck in my back yard. Every night I sleep with my air conditioner set to 70 and I water my lawn daily. I'm having way too much fun to care about this subject. The climate will change and we'll adapt and even if we don't I'll be dead in a few decades and won't give a shit then either. I'm also not paying back any of that money my elected representatives borrowed from China. Sadly none of that was meant to be sarcastic. It's all true. That last part was sarcastic. There's nothing sad about it. Have a beer and pull up a chair on the deck. It's going to be a long drought and/or ice age. Might as well get comfortable.

Re:I can't be bothered to care (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 5 months ago | (#46932619)

Did the mullet come with the car, or did you have to grow it separately?

(kidding, of course. The sad thing is, that car probably gets mileage than than just about anything made before 1990)

Re:I can't be bothered to care (1)

JudgeFurious (455868) | about 5 months ago | (#46932701)

Mullets are so late-70's. Today it's the "Clippers please, #2 on the sides" look that's replaced it. I get 18/25 with the Mustang and while I'm not always laying on it I don't make any effort to nurse it along either. It does do well compared to the old ones.

Re:I can't be bothered to care (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#46932873)

Downside: You'll go down in history as being a part of the problem rather than the solution. Your descendants will wonder what the hell you were thinking.

Still denialists, no surprise. (4, Insightful)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 5 months ago | (#46932563)

While I believe this report is overall truthful, I can't help but think of Clair Cameron Patterson [wikipedia.org] . It took him 20 years of fighting corporations and their "bought and payed for" scientists to convince enough people in our government that the nation was dying due to lead poisoning to actually do something about it. This despite the fact that the reality of it was in-your-face blatant the whole time. We should all consider him a hero and be thankful that he solely lead the charge against the ridicule he faced. Although a largely unsung and unknown hero, he really did save the nation. The convincing that needs done now is a bit more diverse and politically complicated. Lets hope we come to our senses in time on the issue of climate change as we did with lead.

Re:Still denialists, no surprise. (3, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 5 months ago | (#46932739)

There's this unspoken assumption by "both sides" that serious measures, i.e. a command-and-control type solution, is what the doctor has ordered.

Yet a quick look around the world, and at history, shows we will be better off adapting and chamging rather than puttng brakes on things. The average wellbeing depends on a powerful economy to provide and invent. Command and control sucks at both, in spite of the apparently rational idea it should not. It is empirical data.

Re:Still denialists, no surprise. (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 5 months ago | (#46932933)

There is a point where a species cannot adapt and change fast enough. We do not yet fully understand the implications of a fully realized man-made global warming event, at what point it could become a runaway event, and where that might lead. The reason the Permian extinction event "The Great Dying" killed 99% of all life on Earth, was due to the Earth rapidly flip flopping between deep freeze and hot enough to bake a loaf of bread on the surface. Evolution simply could not keep up. The halls of extinction still has plenty of room left, and no doubt at least some of it will get filled over the coming eons. Better to err on the side of caution.

Re:Still denialists, no surprise. (4, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#46933043)

There is a point where a species cannot adapt and change fast enough.

And for those interested, that point is approximately the speed of AGW divided by 10,000:

http://news.discovery.com/eart... [discovery.com]

Re:Still denialists, no surprise. (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#46932947)

And how would we have adopted to lead poisoning? We put the brakes on lead, CFCs, China-style air pollution (see: late 1800s/early 1900s US) and just dumping toxic shit into the environment until the land went barren and the rivers caught fire, and yet we're still here. We command and controlled those problems into submission like a bunch of commies and yet there are no bread lines.

You might want to take a closer look at history.

Re:Still denialists, no surprise. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#46933007)

Interesting, I didn't know lead poisoning faced the same problems, I assumed it was straightforward enough...

Re:Still denialists, no surprise. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46933011)

What makes you think the green movement isn't "bought and paid for science". Most who benefit from the green movement are the largest of the large corporations at the expense of the middle class worker who must pay more for everything from food to energy.

Even Fox is a believer now! (2)

mspohr (589790) | about 5 months ago | (#46932583)

Latest episode of Cosmos broadcast on Fox TV:
"We just can't seem to stop burning up all those buried trees from way back in the carboniferous age, in the form of coal, and the remains of ancient plankton, in the form of oil and gas. If we could, we'd be home free climate wise. Instead, we're dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate the Earth hasn't seen since the great climate catastrophes of the past, the ones that led to mass extinctions. We just can't seem to break our addiction to the kinds of fuel that will bring back a climate last seen by the dinosaurs, a climate that will drown our coastal cities and wreak havoc on the environment and our ability to feed ourselves. All the while, the glorious sun pours immaculate free energy down upon us, more than we will ever need. Why can't we summon the ingenuity and courage of the generations that came before us? The dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What's our excuse?"
The show:
http://www.cosmosontv.com/watc... [cosmosontv.com]
The news:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Even Fox is a believer now! (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 5 months ago | (#46932785)

News Corp will sell anything they think they can sell. They'll sell science on Fox Broadcasting and paranoia on Fox News. The various properties don't have to get along, so long as they're profitable. Witness this jab at Fox News by The Simpsons, which also appears on Fox Broadcasting:

http://www.thewrap.com/sites/d... [thewrap.com]

Re:Even Fox is a believer now! (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46932803)

Our excuse?

Well... well... I DON'T WANNA DO WITHOUT MY SUV!!!

(and yes, I'm aware that caps are yelling, that's the idea behind it, thanks for the info, /.)

Re:Even Fox is a believer now! (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 5 months ago | (#46932981)

Fox TV != Fox News

So the real question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932603)

Why are we researching how to deal with it instead of pretending we can stop climate?

Lots of other human-created reasons too (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932633)

At least here in the west, the increased wildfire issues are also partially caused by lack of proper forest-management. Wildfires are a natural phenomenon that allow forests to rebuild themselves - but in our zeal to prevent them, and also to prevent forest thinning via logging over the last few decades, we are breeding wildfire territories.

As for water shortages in California - we have been court-ordered to drain reservoirs and dump extra water into our rivers in order to flood the delta so that "endangered" smelt can survive. As such, we have also depleted agriculture of the much-needed water to grow plants - water that floods the land and seeps into the ground to refill the water table that is used for wells.

We are messing with things every year in the name of "environment", and causing other unintended consequences - but yet when these problems crop up, we just label them all "climate change" and blame something else.

So the choice is, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932659)

Give up technology and go back to the stone age,
or the ocean rises 1 ft and land in Canada goes up in value.

This can't be true (0, Troll)

prefec2 (875483) | about 5 months ago | (#46932671)

In my disc world the sun rises and sets following a path defined by god. All the bad weather are preludes of Armageddon. All the sinners will die!!!!! /sarkasm

Re:This can't be true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932841)

"All the bad weather are preludes of Armageddon."

Are you making fun of obstinate religious people or global warming alarmists? I can't tell.

Re:This can't be true (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 5 months ago | (#46932993)

And all the people really suck at XML.

WalMart parking lots? (2)

Willuz (1246698) | about 5 months ago | (#46932691)

Streets and rivers are flooding more so it MUST be global warming. It can't have anything to do with the millions of square miles (guesstimate) of asphalt and buildings we construct each year which prevent water from entering the ground and funnel them into concrete ditches instead.

Here's what I think should happen. (3, Insightful)

RocketScientist (15198) | about 5 months ago | (#46932723)

I think the President should go on a few more golf outings, you know, fly in his big old 747 to somewhere far away and play a round or two, and then fly back to DC. Then, we need to have a UN Climate Summit somewhere tropical, and figure out how to solve the logistics problems inherent in having a meeting in a remote location, like how to make sure adequate supplies of caviar are flown in fresh daily and where to park all the jets ferrying individuals to their destination.

I'll believe it's a problem when the people who are telling me it's a problem start acting like it's a problem. When the logistics problems go from caviar to videoconferencing bandwidth. When the President decides that golfing locally is a better idea than flying somewhere.

"Oh, you just don't understand international diplomacy and the need for face-to-face communications to achieve consensus!"

You're asking me to change my life and not accepting any changes in the way you live yours. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Solution to my housing crisis (1)

watermark (913726) | about 5 months ago | (#46932755)

I bought my house and went crazy upside down on it. I'm in the better part of nation for climate predictions. Looks like my property value is set to skyrocket once everyone else runs out of water/food.

"Smoking" gun (4, Insightful)

onkelonkel (560274) | about 5 months ago | (#46932775)

The Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health came out in 1964. It clearly and undeniably showed the evidence that smoking was harmful. Now, 50 years later, only about 1/2 of the states have actually banned smoking in enclosed public spaces.

Why does anyone expect America to respond to AGW any quicker or more effectively?

Here comes the alarmist Nazis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46932809)

That's about all there is to it.

it ultimately means a very drastic change. (5, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about 5 months ago | (#46932813)

When the international communities remark with amazement at how recalcitrant american business, government, and even its own people are to even the suggestion of climate change I cant help but wonder if, as an american, people from other countries have a full understanding of just what it would mean for us to change...Everything we do, and all that we are, is prediacted upon cheap reliably supplied oil. this was a decision made after world war 2 and reinforced by the carter doctrine of foreign policy. it was a horrendous mistake.

We dont have local farms or slaughterhouses. everything is created in one place, and delivered by trucks that run on roads subsidized by american taxpayers from one of maybe a handful of factory farms dotted throughout the midwest. American markets have no season; if you want a jackfruit, it can and will be delivered more than two thousand miles to you and the ramifications of that is not even a cursory consideration. Drinks are kept cold, constantly. Ice is plentifully and liberally added to nearly any beverage you get. Beer hovers somewhere around the freezing mark. We can do this because the way we approach energy is just as we had in the 50's.

our rail system is no different than it was in the early 50's. slight modifications have been made to handle larger cargo, but the system runs at around 40 miles per hour and carries only the most cumbersome goods. Cars, Coal, shale oil and natural gas are the chief passengers. toxins too dangerous to transport by semi truck, things like hydrofluoric acid, are also frequently transported. Corridor rail systems used in boston and LA that do in fact transport people are powered exclusively by diesel, as are all our rail systems. We have minimal and fiercely debated electric light rail systems in some cities, and some have transitioned their busses to natural gas, however outside our largest four or five metropolitan areas every transportation request you have will be granted by the automobile.

Im not trying to justify what we do or why we do it. Its sad, and unsustainable in my opinion but whats important to understand is that acknowledging climate change and doing something productive about it in America means infrastructure overhaul not seen since Franklin Delano Rosevelt. It means the average 1 hour american car drive to work has to stop. Perpetually illuminated office buildings have to stop. Cities like phoenix will have to stop landscaping bluegrass lawns and water features into communities and we as a nation will have to swallow a nice big slice of 'we did it wrong' pie. The reasons we dont do anything about this problem are mostly political, but under the politics and the money, you have a system of society that is at its foundation based on conspicuous, questionless consumption and the planned obsolescence of nearly everything. anything to retard or stymy consumption is seen as a natural threat.

Stopped reading, FUD (1, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about 5 months ago | (#46932851)

The whole thing will stop smelling like a religion when they stop CONSTANTLY trying to stretch some tissue-paper-thin suppositions into policy prescriptions.

I stopped reading at "...frequent water shortages and hurricanes in the Southeast and Caribbean..."

http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]

Essentially, the link between global warming and hurricanes is hotly (get it?) debated, the data inconclusive and contradictory. My understanding is that reasonable scientists disagree on this one. To use this as wall paper in some recent 'boilerplate of doom' just proves that they lack any sense of their own incredibility.

It Certainly is... (-1, Flamebait)

hackus (159037) | about 5 months ago | (#46933025)

North America just had its worse winter since temps were recorded in the 1800's on a regular basis.

It is getting incredibly "cold"

No wonder the report is so dire.

Oh wait...did I say cold?

Squack! (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 5 months ago | (#46933045)

I hear the Chicken Littles squacking again.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?