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!

Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 months ago | from the midsummer-2045 dept.

Earth 708

New submitter SomeoneFromBelgium (3420851) writes According to Bloomberg a leaked climate report from the IPPC speaks of "Irreversible Damage." The warnings in the report are, as such, not new but the tone of voice is more urgent and more direct than ever. It states among other things that global warming already is affecting "all continents and across the oceans," and that "risks from mitigation can be substantial, but they do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation action."

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

Damage or Change? (1, Troll)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 months ago | (#47765001)

Climate has always changed, the concept of "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it. But lets pretend that they're the same thing, because it will gather more clicks.

Impacts (2, Informative)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47765059)

“Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally,” the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the draft.

Re:Impacts (5, Interesting)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 months ago | (#47765165)

It was kind of going that way anyhow though, either to a tropical earth or back towards a new ice age. And really given the choice the tropical option is less destrcutive. As I understand it we were in an interglacial until people started digging up sequestered carbon and injecting it into the atmosphere. Either way I don't believe it will be possible to stabilise the climate over the mid to long term, at least not with our current technology, so maybe its best just to prepare to adapt to these changes.

Re:Impacts (-1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47765219)

Yes, we should prepare, but we can not adapt.
With are current Greenhouse gas release, there isn't an endpoint survivable by humans. It will get two warm for food growth, anywhere.
People act like, well it will happen and we will just farm 200 miles more north.

Re:Impacts (2, Insightful)

knightghost (861069) | about 2 months ago | (#47765361)

All I see is "the world is ending!" without any realistic measurements provided. Show me what it's going to cost at each point, and when. The simplest, lowest cost adaptation is simply to build above future sea levels. The lowest cost food change is crop switching and genetic manipulation. The simplest - and probably only - long term solution is reducing population numbers.

Re:Impacts (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765523)

Those are a lot of conclusions to draw when you openly admit that you have insufficient measurements and cost estimates.

Re:Impacts (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765539)

Yes, we should prepare, but we can not adapt.
With are current Greenhouse gas release, there isn't an endpoint survivable by humans. It will get two warm for food growth, anywhere.
People act like, well it will happen and we will just farm 200 miles more north.

Please learn something:

Average planetary temperature and CO2 concentration for the past billion years or so [paulmacrae.com]

Important points:

1. Average planetary temperature now is about 12C. Average temperature for most of the past billion years or so is 22C
2. Average CO2 concentration today is EXTREME geological LOW. It's been as high as > 7000ppm
3. There's pretty much ZERO correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Note well that if temperatures go up 2C, we've still got 8C to go before the planet reaches its "normal" average temperature.

Re:Impacts (2, Insightful)

mi (197448) | about 2 months ago | (#47765557)

Ah, this is a lot more persuasive than your earlier attempt [slashdot.org] , but still not quite good enough... Citation needed much? (No, IPCC-produced documents don't count — members of the panel are government-appointed politicians, not scientists [dailycaller.com] .)

Please, don't hate.

Re:Impacts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765597)

The climate is already inherently stable. That's why it doesn't warm up to 1000 degrees and then cool to -200 degrees periodically.

Re:Impacts (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 months ago | (#47765315)

Good for nature, bad for man. Just like O2 Poisoning the planet when it was overrun by Plant life. Life adapts. Humans haven't always been around, and won't be around forever. Because we are aware of our own demise doesn't change these facts.

Re:Impacts (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765339)

Is it sane, given foreknowledge of your own demise and the power to avert it, to charge full-steam-ahead toward that demise? If humanity were a person, we'd lock it up for its own safety.

Re:Impacts (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765435)

“Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally,” the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the draft.

Oh great. "The sky is gonna fall! Almost 100 years from now!!! Disaster is looming!!!!"

And people wonder where deniers come from?

Here's a hint: exaggeration and catastrophic alarmism destroy credibility.

Re:Damage or Change? (5, Insightful)

Urkki (668283) | about 2 months ago | (#47765123)

Climate has always changed, the concept of "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it.

You mean, the same way as asteroids of various sizes have impacted into the Earth throughout the history of the planet, and "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it?

Yes, I agree.

Re:Damage or Change? (2, Informative)

thedonger (1317951) | about 2 months ago | (#47765201)

Climate has always changed, the concept of "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it.

You mean, the same way as asteroids of various sizes have impacted into the Earth throughout the history of the planet, and "Damage" is only relevant to those affected by it?

Yes, I agree.

Sure, why not? And it is only "damage" to the species that die out. Think of all the evolutionary opportunity there will be in the Next Phase!

Re:Damage or Change? (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#47765293)

I, for one, welcome our new raccoon-descended overlords.

Re:Damage or Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765419)

I, for one, welcome our new raccoon-descended overlords.

Agreed. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Damage or Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765477)

Exactly.

The biosphere as we know it completely obliterated the previous hot, molten rock strewn landscape; the damage was immeasurable. Did the formation of the oceans "damage" the landscape and life on it as it they filled up? Did the receding glaciers damage the ocean salinity?
There have been hot and wet periods, cold and icy periods and long stretches in between where things were "just right" (by our human standards). Cycles.
We may in fact be in a period of human induced global warming or not, but climate change is going to be 100% guaranteed as long as Earth has any atmosphere of any kind. In the end the Earth will be fine, it's always fine, it will adapt and new life may or may not be able to form in the resultant environment. People may or may not be able to survive the environment but the Earth will exist until the local star swallows it up in a few billion years. Humans won't be missed by the later dominant species any more than we miss any species that has been extinct for millions of years, in other words a curiosity if we even know about them

Re:Damage or Change? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765327)

And water acts like a solid at the femtosecond time scale. Yes climate always change, slowly. That's the point, it's not changing slowly anymore.

Re:Damage or Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765421)

Climate has not always changed slowly. Proxies have shown radical shifts in the climate on the scale of tens of years and this was when there were no hoo-mans around to burn fossil fuels and such and discounting things like asteroids.

No, climate is not a stable thing and, yes, it can change rapidly. Just because we think we're the lords of the earth and all creation because of some ancient texts doesn't make it so and that the world will always bend knee to us.

We'll go extinct. The climate and remaining life forms will adapt and things will go on as they have for billions of years.

Interesting slam of Judith Curry (-1, Flamebait)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47765011)

The report is getting slammed by sloppy thinkers. Judith Curry's conceptual difficulties are detailed here: http://www.realclimate.org/ind... [realclimate.org]

Re:Interesting slam of Judith Curry (0)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 2 months ago | (#47765155)

MDSOLAR why do you post links from that biased site every time climate comes up? Do you work for them? Post from respectable sources.

Re:Interesting slam of Judith Curry (1)

thedonger (1317951) | about 2 months ago | (#47765213)

MDSOLAR why do you post links from that biased site every time climate comes up? Do you work for them? Post from respectable sources.

Wikipedia says it will be 75 degrees (F) and sunny for the rest of time! [citation needed]

Re:Interesting slam of Judith Curry (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47765255)

Please characterize the bias.

I won't reject your claims of bias out of hand(and benefit of the doubt is pretty much entirely what deniers rely on for everything so my patience is a little limited.

This isn't "Watts up with that" where there's a financial payment for having the right opinions. These are scientists with appropriate credentials discussing common misinformation.

If there is a bias, there must A: be an undisclosed or clearly concerning motivation or B: some kind of oversight problems.

I don't mind discussing bias, but I want it to be more than "It calls my out my flawed opinions".

Expert site (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47765257)

RealClimate is an expert site. That is where you will find reliable information.

Re:Expert site (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47765381)

You know, honestly, the piles of mindless hate you get for a relatively benign opinion and posting news stories in support of that benign opinion tends to make me more, and not less, sympathetic to your positions.

Must be getting old (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47765581)

I was reaching for revolutionary opinions but could only get the benign shelf....

Re:Expert site (1)

jandrese (485) | about 2 months ago | (#47765593)

Expert spin doctor site, yes. Just don't confuse anything on there with reasoned analysis.

knuckle dragging rewards won't believe this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765015)

Alright morons, show us how stupid you are and demonstrate your ignorance of basic scientific principals!

Re:knuckle dragging rewards won't believe this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765129)

damnitalltohell, when you say it wrong, you sound like a maroon (intentionally mis-spelled moron) - it's retards, not rewards.

More urgent? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765017)

More urgent and direct than ever? That's good because they were so calm about it up to now.

Re:More urgent? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765207)

I love the way it's claimed to have been "leaked", as though the IPCC would sit on this. Perhaps they think making it officially a 'leak' will make people think they were going to cover it up, to trick people into thinking that "something must be done, right now!"

Re:More urgent? (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#47765357)

What thought proccesses could have led to this post?

"Hey my conspiracy theories don't have enough conspiracy in them yet, why don't I make deniers look even crazier?"

It's "leaked" because it's still under review prior to publication.

What? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765021)

Are you telling me that spewing into the atmosphere millions of years of accumulated sunlight and cutting down most of the natural CO2 scrubers (trees) of the world will have negative effects? Nah! Imposible!

Re:What? (1)

emagery (914122) | about 2 months ago | (#47765137)

Well said

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765167)

Are you telling me that spewing into the atmosphere millions of years of accumulated sunlight and cutting down most of the natural CO2 scrubers (trees) of the world will have negative effects?

1. Trees do nothing
2. Human emissions are not even stable, they are continuing to increase. 60 million barrels of oil went up in smoke 10 years ago. Today, almost 50% MORE, 90 million barrels a day. Coal, increasing too. Gas usage, increasing.

Confused people will start talking about things like "cow farts" or "trees" or similar. These have nothing to do with global warming - the climate thing - because these do not represent sequestered carbon. These are all carbon cycle stuff. Sequestered carbon being ADDED to the atmosphere is the issue - coal, oil, gas, peat.

If your "solution" is planting trees, and it does not include harvesting said trees and burring them in mines, then all you are doing is deluding yourself.

PS. I like trees. They clean the air. They look nice. I grow them from seeds. But just planting them does absolutely nothing to carbon sequestration.

Re:What? (-1, Flamebait)

thedonger (1317951) | about 2 months ago | (#47765253)

Sequestered carbon being ADDED to the atmosphere is the issue - coal, oil, gas, peat.

Wait a minute...If saving the planet means no more peat then fuck the planet and pour me some Islay whisky.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

makq (3730933) | about 2 months ago | (#47765267)

As long as the tree is growing more than it is decomposing, don't they sequester carbon internally?

Re:What? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 months ago | (#47765505)

Confused people will start talking about things like "cow farts" or "trees" or similar. These have nothing to do with global warming - the climate thing - because these do not represent sequestered carbon.

Not quite right. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So, taking existing atmospheric carbon in the form of CO2 and turning it into methane will increase warming.

Re:What? (2)

dtjohnson (102237) | about 2 months ago | (#47765335)

Yes, in the beginning there was carbon and water. Then, the water was split into hydrogen and oxygen which oxidized the carbon into carbon dioxide and left a lot of hydrogen gas drifting around. Then life spontaneously arose and converted the carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons aka "stored sunlight." Then more new life spontaneously arose which could metabolize the stored sunlight (aka food) into carbon dioxide and now here we are busily turning/burning the stored sunlight back into carbon dioxide. Now, all we need to do is to stop everyone from burning the stored sunlight and we will all live happily ever after on our beautiful planet while happily skipping naked hand in hand with naked females through meadows filled with daisies and dandelions. [editor: please add the above to the IPCC report to the world leaders]

only 2 things left to do... (2)

Cardoor (3488091) | about 2 months ago | (#47765023)

change your name to Kamin and learn to play the flute.

Delayed action (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765033)

We'll never do anything about climate change as long as businesses can dictate law, control the EPA, and guide lawmaking through lobbyists. The Supreme Court has literally ensured this.

I can't stand the idea that multi-billion corporations can't afford to spend 1/8th of their profit, if even that much, to operate in a more environmentally friendly manner.

Gotta hoard and accumulate money at all costs, no matter what happens.

Re:Delayed action (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765115)

http://www.ted.com/talks/pavan_sukhdev_what_s_the_price_of_nature?language=en

Have the corps pay the community based on the cash value of economic damage they do and see the shareholders agree to environment-friendly methods.

Re:Delayed action (1, Funny)

Sarius64 (880298) | about 2 months ago | (#47765395)

Have politicians give up their salaries to pay for carbon credits. Have progressives pay for the legions of illegals on the welfare doles now. Have conservatives pay for abortion clinics for militant atheists. Have everyone pay for the continued corporate welfare cycle that's not in the Constitution.

Beyond what humans can do (-1, Troll)

frikken lazerz (3788987) | about 2 months ago | (#47765047)

Global warming has affected all continents, oceans, etc. - very powerful Humans can't even make it rain or change the weather locally. Anyone who thinks they can affect the whole world this much is a moron or shill for some environmental group. Global warming exists. Anyone who denies that is also a moron. But it's certainly not manmade. To all you science people, correlation does not equal causation. How else do you explain the many periods of warming and cooling in the past long before humans even existed?? I rest my case before the nuts here censor my message.

Re:Beyond what humans can do (3, Funny)

Cardoor (3488091) | about 2 months ago | (#47765063)

ready guys? 1....2...3.... get him!!!

Re:Beyond what humans can do (1)

Kythe (4779) | about 2 months ago | (#47765143)

You will be remembered for your contributions on this issue, I'm sure. What I'm not sure about is whether you'll like how you're remembered.

Re:Beyond what humans can do (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 months ago | (#47765323)

I am fine being remembered for pointing out yet again we will be better off in 100, 200 or 300 years keeping the economy strong and forging ahead with technological advancement than slowing it by draconian clamps on the economy (there are many clamps beside environmental remediation).

100 years ago we barely had simple planes and no antibiotics. Horses were still common in the streets. Had they slowed down their growth to "help" us, well, thanks for nuthin', Gentleman Jim.

The best thing we can do for future generations is keep things going.

I remain confident it is the hyperventillation crowd that will be proved murderously dangerous idiots in the long run. I am fine going down on record with that prediction.

Re:Beyond what humans can do (1)

Kythe (4779) | about 2 months ago | (#47765585)

The great thing about science and scientific predictions: in the end, whether it's right or wrong doesn't depend upon your political biases.

Re:Beyond what humans can do (1)

Njorthbiatr (3776975) | about 2 months ago | (#47765195)

We can make it rain, actually. It's called cloud seeding.

Re:Beyond what humans can do (2, Insightful)

emagery (914122) | about 2 months ago | (#47765197)

Do you really have so little concept as to the scale of human damage? A single average-sized car puts out 4.75 metric TONS of carbon every year (and about 2-3 years worth during its construction and a little bit more during its destruction.) At last check there were more cars in the use being operated than there are drivers... and that's just one country... whilst this amount is being dwarfed by carbon emissions tied up in industrial agriculture (local/natural agriculture trends toward carbon neutral to negative, but can only sustain modest populations the likes of which we haven't seen on earth for over a century.) The fact that YOUR individual contribution to the damage done is a drop in the bucket does nothing to deny the fact that you are not the only person on earth... it's a tiny place in the grand scheme of things and we've overrun the place and are spending carbon, water, and oxygen like there's no tomorrow... which is no longer a mathematically implausible scenario as a result. The world's WORST extinction level event was also a climate change one, and we've reach the same levels at 40000x the speed... if life couldn't cope at that snail's pace (~1000000 years of constant hawaii-style volcanic carbon farting, killing off some 95% of all life) why do you think it (or we) will fare any better doing the equivalent of flying this jet into a brick wall?

Re:Beyond what humans can do (1)

emagery (914122) | about 2 months ago | (#47765221)

typos notwithstanding

Re:Beyond what humans can do (1, Interesting)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 2 months ago | (#47765225)

It's funny how delusional people like frikken lazers think that pointing out that he's in Republican alternate reality means that nuts are censoring his message. These AGW deniers are just as cracked as evolution deniers, and are often the same people. I hope he gets some professional help.

Re:Beyond what humans can do (-1, Troll)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 months ago | (#47765275)

I am totally impressed. You nailed it. Thousands of researchers have simply missed the point with their modeling (which even included previous climate cycles). It's all 'natural' and therefore OK.

Before I subscribe to your newsletter, can you please tell me how we are going to deal with all of those people displaced by this natural phenomenon? And what might be the risks and benefits of trying to intervene in this cycle until we get the human population down to some more reasonable number?

Or are you just mad, bro?

Beyond what humans can do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765359)

Your entire argument is that you can't see how humans can affect the whole world thus they must not be able to. Bad reasoning.

Moreover, your argument that humans can't make it rain or affect the weather locally is patently false. It rains more during the weekend in human populated areas due to pollution build up during the work week. This same pattern is not seen in the open ocean lending support to the fact that our pollution is causing the variation. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6693/abs/394561a0.html

So, yes we can and do change the weather locally. We also change it globally.

Re:Beyond what humans can do (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 months ago | (#47765379)

Anyone who thinks they can affect the whole world this much is a moron or shill for some environmental group.

So how do you account for:

The hole in the ozone layer and the successful global response to fix it

Acid rain destroying forests and the successful global response to fix it?

Were they also not man made problems that affected the world as a whole?

Thats been answered. (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47765389)

". To all you science people, correlation does not equal causation. "
no shit, Sherlock.

" How else do you explain the many periods of warming and cooling in the past long before humans even existed?"
There are different way the earth can warm. The effect of shoving more green house gasses into the atmosphere causes warming on top of other trends. There is no doubt about this at all.

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publ... [unibe.ch]

" I rest my case"
You did not, in any way, 'make a case'. You might want to learn what the means.
If you want to make a case, you need to start by showing which one of these is false:

1) The Earth gets lots of light from the sun
2) Visible light emits IR when it strike something
3) CO2 absorbs energy from IR
4) Humans but more green house gasses into the air then can be absorbed.

The basic science on warming is trivial. Literally any of these can, nad have, been test by any decent College lab. Hell, even A good high school lab could do it. This is why deniers never talk about the actual science and only talk about cherry picked data points, or make ad homs.

So, the climate is warming due to more energy being trapped.
Climate Change is the impact AGW has on the climate. They are related but separate issues.
So, why would adding energy to a system not change it?
At this point, some knuckle head is about to slam his meat hooks onto his keyboard in what he thinks is a clever retort,. I will take this time to remind him the new equilibrium is only reach when the change in energy stops, and there is no rule saying the planet need to be livable when equilibrium is achieved.

More to the point:
Why do you think there is a 97% consensus? Why do you think countries whose best interest would be that there is no AGW agree there is AGW?
Some people think there is a weird conspiracy. That would mean the China is in on it for no reason. Why?

Re:Beyond what humans can do (1)

jandersen (462034) | about 2 months ago | (#47765513)

How your comment got modded Insightful is a mystery. You don't give any arguments, you just postulate.

Humans can't even make it rain or change the weather locally

Really? Just one example: the notorious London smog. Most major cities used to be covered in the filthy stuff until burning coal in cities was largely banned; does that not qualify as weather? It certainly changed the atmosphere in large, local areas.

Anyone who thinks they can affect the whole world this much is a moron or shill for some environmental group

Hmm, right. Another example: man-made plastic pollution is now found everywhere - with the possible exception of Antarctica. You find it everywhere, even in the middle of the Pacific, and it does in fact affect wildlife. Or how about the fact that manmade chemicals can now be measured in just about every sample of water you can come about? The truth is that mankind does in fact influence every environment on the planet; the good news is that this also means that we can choose to use our influence to make things better.

But it's certainly not manmade

You know that, do you? How? Evidence, please.

correlation does not equal causation

However, it does equal correlation - and correlation means there is some sort of connection. Climatologists have come up with some very likely explanations, unlike you.

How else do you explain the many periods of warming and cooling in the past long before humans even existed?

That one is brought forth all the time, but it is a nonsense argument. The only thing it proves is that climate change can be caused by other things than human activity; nobody has ever denied that, and in fact, for many years the preferred theory was that we didn't affect climate, but we have had to abandon that idea, because the observable facts speak against it.

I rest my case before the nuts here censor my message

As you already knew, nobody was going to 'censor' your opinions. In fact, you have been modded up - strange as it seems. But you just had to try to milk the 'freedom of speech' card for what it was worth, didn't you? You should be ashamed.

Re:Beyond what humans can do (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 2 months ago | (#47765563)

So what's your research? What data did you take to make this conclusion? What are your hypotheses and theories regarding the current warming trend? Oh wait, you're just knee-jerking because you think we can't possibly have done it.

We can't make it rain? You've not heard of cloud seeding [wikipedia.org] , have you? No, we don't have the power to control the weather locally, because that involves some truly massive amounts of energy. Thing is, on a global scale, humanity throws out truly massive amounts of energy. How much?

Everyone knows of the Mount St. Helens eruption from 1980. That eruption was fairly large (though not that large, sure): it released 24 megatons of energy [wikipedia.org] in total. In 2008, humanity consumed almost 144,000 TW-hours [wikipedia.org] of energy. That's 5000 St. Helens eruptions every year, or 14 eruptions per day. We consume INCREDIBLE amounts of energy, yet you believe that our exhaust fumes cannot possibly affect the climate? Volcanoes are known to be able to, though!

Note that this isn't meant to be a scientific proof or anything of the sort. You just seem to be unaware of the scale to which humanity has developed. Yes, we are most certainly able to affect the planet on a global scale, and that includes global warming. If you need another example, I'd just point at what global thermonuclear war would've done to the planet and leave it at that.

Oh, and you know what's one of the big flaws in your argument? There can be many causes for one consequence... It's well accepted that there are natural cycles of cooling and warming, but that doesn't preclude that other factors can also contribute to the global temperature, like humans. For someone so quick to throw out the tired old meme of logic "correlation does not mean causation", you sure seem fine with making major logical faults when they suit your perspective.

Simple English Wikipedia will come in handy (4, Insightful)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 2 months ago | (#47765051)

From the article:

The UN panel since September has published three separate reports into the physical science of global warming, its impacts, and ways to fight it. The study leaked yesterday, called the “Synthesis Report” intends to pick out the most important findings and present them in a way that lawmakers can easily understand. (Emphasis mine)

Why do I have a feeling the report to the politicians will have to read a lot like the Simple English Wikipedia, to the point where it might not be a bad idea to get the writers for that on it.

"Global warming is a bad thing that causes lots of problems. Burning stuff causes global warming. If you keep burning stuff, you will have a bad problem."

Irreversible? (3, Interesting)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 months ago | (#47765055)

--- “Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me... Anything can happen, child. Anything can be.”

Shel Silverstein

The 'impossible' is just something that hasn't been done yet.

Re:Irreversible? (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47765173)

"Possible permanent changes include the melting of the ice sheet covering Greenland. That would boost sea levels by as much as 7 meters (23 feet) and threaten coastal cities from Miami to Bangkok along with island nations such as the Maldives, Kiribati and Tuvalu.

The scientists said they have “medium confidence” that warming of less than 4 degrees Celsius would be enough to trigger such a melt, which would take at least a millennium.

Other effects the report flags include reduced food security as production of crops such as wheat, rice and maize in the tropics is damaged, melting of Arctic sea ice, and acidification of the oceans."

Irreversible is sometimes like trying to unscramble eggs. Loss of the Greenland ice sheet is like that because rebuilding it would take an ice age owing to the loss of altitude upon melting. We're not going to allow another ice age.

Re:Irreversible? (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 2 months ago | (#47765285)

"Irreversible" is a very strong word, and clearly incorrect. We're not so much talking about unscrambling eggs here as something than *can* be corrected, and in all likelihood *will* be corrected, just by leaving it alone and waiting long enough. The problem for us humans here today, of course, is that we won't we around that long and in all probability neither will many generations of our decendants. I fully expect the naysayers to latch on to this in combination with the historical record showing that the earth has been warmer than this in the past as further "evidence" that the IPCC has no clue in their rebuttals over the next few days.

Re:Irreversible? (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47765337)

Ah, you one of those kill all the humans types: "just by leaving it alone and waiting long enough." So, who is going to do the waiting around?

Re:Irreversible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765403)

"Irreversible" is a very strong word, and clearly incorrect. We're not so much talking about unscrambling eggs here as something than *can* be corrected, and in all likelihood *will* be corrected, just by leaving it alone and waiting long enough. The problem for us humans here today, of course, is that we won't we around that long and in all probability neither will many generations of our decendants. I fully expect the naysayers to latch on to this in combination with the historical record showing that the earth has been warmer than this in the past as further "evidence" that the IPCC has no clue in their rebuttals over the next few days.

I think that by "irreversible" they mean that Life Goes On, but a lot of species won't. Eventually, IF we stabilize things and give life a chance to adapt, new species will arise faster than species can die out and in that sense, it will "reverse". Just minus some animals and trees that we may not miss at all or may miss greatly.

The problem isn't, in the end, climate change. Climate always changes. The problem is that if we force it to change at a speed greater than life can adapt, we lose biodiversity and all the benefits that that gives us.

Re:Irreversible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765365)

"Possible permanent changes include the melting of the ice sheet covering Greenland...

Reason for a real estate boon in Greenland. Change is good, and inevitable.

Re:Irreversible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765531)

Well, if we can't grow wheat , rice and all that then Quinoa will save us.

Re:Irreversible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765211)

TFA has nothing to do with the possibilities of individual human achievement, and a lot to do with the politics of millions/billions of humans.

Re:Irreversible? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 2 months ago | (#47765371)

That's besides the point. If we act now, we have a chance at fixing it that's fairly large and wouldn't cause that many problems. If we act much later, we have fewer chances of succeeding and even success would probably mean that people (how many? thousands? millions?) have died for nothing. Saying that we can always recover is incredibly selfish, even if it's true (and frankly it's more of a gamble than I'd like).

Re:Irreversible? (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 2 months ago | (#47765429)

The 'impossible' is just something that hasn't been done yet.

Nothing is impossible eh? Go slam a revolving door.

well... (1, Funny)

argStyopa (232550) | about 2 months ago | (#47765085)

I just hope global warming increases to the point where it can self-pop the popcorn I like to eat when these histrionic sorts of things come out. All the sound and fury, so little actually accomplished! Whee!

It's also likely that global warming might deliver pre-melted butter for the popcorn. Damn, what's wrong with this again?

Re:well... (2)

mellon (7048) | about 2 months ago | (#47765125)

Well, if you aspire to be (as opposed to eat) sous vide steaks, I guess there's no problem at all.

Don't Worry! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765109)

Don't worry. Seriously, some very rich people who made a fortune selling gas and coal have assured us that these climate change alarmists are just a bunch of melodramatic liars. There's nothing to worry about.

Re:Don't Worry! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765577)

Guess what? There's now a bunch of very rich people selling us wind generators, building plants to produce ethanol for fuel and solar cells to install on our homes. If you don't think that creates a bias in the AGW promoter camp them you have a long way to go to understand the human condition.

Well, There You Go. (-1)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 2 months ago | (#47765113)

I guess there is no need for a top down socialist style economy to solve man-made global climate change. Oh wait, what? This was never about the climate, you just wanted an excuse for a top down socialist economy? That's a little devious don't you think?

Re:Well, There You Go. (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 2 months ago | (#47765245)

You sound as far gone as Glenn Beck. You're completely lost if you actually believe the wingnut delusion that you've posted.

Re:Well, There You Go. (1)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 2 months ago | (#47765409)

What I didn't notice in your post was any type of rebuttal, only a personal attack.

Re:Well, There You Go. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765411)

Fortunately, science isn't like religion. Reality exists regardless of belief, so it'll be what it'll be. Humanity will probably survive long enough one way or another to settle the outcome of this irrefutably.

Re:Well, There You Go. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765499)

I think you're just too young to have experienced the politics of the 60s and 70s.

Those that went through it are well aware of the intimate connection between environmentalism and anti-capitalism.

Much of that connection was hidden during the 80s and 90 as the economy took off while the environment still improved. But that connection still exists, with many in the environmental movement still holding to radical anti-capitalism.

Re:Well, There You Go. (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47765493)

In some case, it will be top down. This will be in things like, building codes, emission guidlines etc.

If it gets too bad, then I will be all for a top down solution involving guns and the removal of corporate charters.
This is like 97% of all astronomers saying , there is a dark asteroid coming in a couple a hundred years the size of australia, we need to take action. And then large corporation and anti tax groups say 'no it isn't'. And 'your model isn't 100% perfect, therefor it's wrong and invalid!" and people saying. I'll believe it when I see it!" even though it will be too late to do anything about it.

In that case, I would also support taking action, even if it had to be a forced action.
This isn't about a different of opinion on a sports team, or tax code, or privacy. Its about something that will make all the irrelevant if we don't take action now.

I don't believe it (1, Flamebait)

slashdice (3722985) | about 2 months ago | (#47765185)

Barack Obama healed the earth with his inaugural address in 2008!

It's IPCC...not IPPC (3, Informative)

dtjohnson (102237) | about 2 months ago | (#47765193)

At least get the acronym for the name of the organization predicting doom right. And...there's no hurry for action. The climate is currently taking a 'hiatus' from warming due to the alleged storage of heat in the deep ocean. Forecasts for the upcoming winter are...cold.

Re:It's IPCC...not IPPC (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765533)

We know it will warm up because of the models. Those models didn't predict a warming hiatus or storage of heat in the deep oceans. But lets make policy choices based on what those models say. If you don't agree, you hate science and probably beat your wife.

My 0.02 (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 2 months ago | (#47765203)

I'm far from an expert but the drought conditions out west are certainly telling something.

Re:My 0.02 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765453)

The west has been unusually wet in the recent past. Going back a bit longer, there were centuries of drought.

    "The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years."
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

They're getting desperate... (0)

spud_boy_65986534 (807093) | about 2 months ago | (#47765209)

...as their climate models have failed spectacularly at predicting future warming. Now we're supposed to believe the "missing heat" is hiding at the bottom of the Atlantic. CO2 is already at saturation levels as a GHG; it does not necessarily follow AT ALL that more human CO2 emissions will warm the planet. CAGW is, and always has been, about getting the uninformed to reduce consumption via confiscatory pricing and/or taxation of fossil-fuel based energy.

Climate damage is never irreversible (2)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 months ago | (#47765231)

They probably meant irreversible in a reasonable amount of time.

But I absolutely assure you it is possible to undue all damage- if we are willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money to do it.

Now, biological extinctions may be unpreventable, but we can always turn the clock back on climate change.

Re:Climate damage is never irreversible (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 2 months ago | (#47765343)

I don't think the worry with climate change was ever that we'd destroy Earth. It's just that it's in our best interests to avoid a certain species of apes from going extinct. Even that is unlikely, but I'm not sure you'd enjoy the possibility of millions or billions of people dying to an extinction-level event. Who's to say you'd be among the survivors, or your children?

It'd hardly be surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765239)

And in all honesty, what the human race should focus on right now is conserving as much life as possible.
In a living state that is. The seed and DNA systems are good and should still keep going, but they won't be useful for us over the next century when half the human race ends up dying off due to massive eco-collapse.
We are still a long ways off of recreating these creatures from 3D printing machines, or even implantation. (although I would certainly hope to be proven wrong by the mammoth revival project)

What we need to do is make smarter, compact arcologies dotted all around the world. Preferably near renewable power sources like waterfalls that we know 100% will not fail even if the sun grew 5%.
Better yet, make artificial water falls by planting more trees on hills. Trees are hugely important for generating water from the air. You could try DIY it, which we can do, but scaling it up will still have that initial cost. These trees would be essentially free and will be a reasonable size by the time anything might be bad.

People are going to have to give up some spacial freedoms for the sake of the human race. All these big houses, huge empty gardens, all have to go.
You don't and rarely do use them. Smaller efficient homes are easier to heat and manage, and are generally more cosy anyway.
Large shared gardens and farms. And more to the point, vertical gardens and farms. These require special attention to weight distribution and engineering, but they can be done very easily even at a consumer level. (you can make pretty simple aquaponics farms from wood and metal containers)
Buildings and offices that have dual uses. Say for example a clothes store in the morning, then it becomes a bar at night. I've rarely seen businesses that operate like this. Shame, they have a huge building sitting there doing nothing for several hours. Waste if you ask me. They could be making loads of money if they made dual purpose.
So so many more things similar to this.

Our planet is failing. And this matters not of your opinions on it, how much crap you have been fed from the media, it is a plain and simple fact: the climate is changing at a disastrous level.
We haven't experienced this since the last ice age. Not even that volcano that caused a several season winter was that bad.
Large numbers of things will die unless we preserve them in artificial environments.
Places like the Eden Project are incredibly successful and the right direction for such preservation.
And the construction itself is also very well done, and simple as well. Hexagonal building will surely become more important in the years to come, it is strong and easy to construct. (it also uses pentagons too, but hexagons are just that bit better)
I quite liked the idea of that Hexagonal Building that was used for a possible Mars habitat. The layout I disagreed with a little, the bedroom and bathroom should be switched to be beside the other bedroom, but the idea is sound and very workable. 3D printable as well.

Will it happen? Will it fuck. We care more about stupid religious wars, obsessively collecting pointless data and stupid resource wars that are only going to get worse to the point where we will likely end up wiping ourselves off the planet, along with billions of other lifeforms.
Literally if every country sat down right now and said "no, let's fix this shit", it could work.
Look at all the spending you see on things like the US Military. Imagine if that was put in to preserving our future. There would even be a problem any more.
Shits wasteful and pointless. And the results barely even last a decade before there is more conflict.
Only regular people will be able to get this done. Depending on governments is pointless now. They have all failed us. And trying to get them evicted from their positions of power will only cause more conflict.
Given my country is likely going to be thrown in to a awful mess within the next week due to a silly independence attempt (which I agree with on some levels, but it is still too early to decide), I'm already making plans to fix the mess that the possible government will leave us in.

Models may differ from reality (0)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 2 months ago | (#47765241)

Do these studies properly account for ALL animal flatulence? Including whales? I didn't think so.

Re: Models may differ from reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765431)

When it comes to distractions, a fart is as good as a shiney. It isn't really all the oil we've been burning that's causing problems, it's... cow farts. Yup, cow farts. And whale farts, too.

IPPC... (1)

monkeypushbutton (3537595) | about 2 months ago | (#47765261)

.. is that organisation similar to the IPCC? Insert snark about editors here.

"Leaked" huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765277)

Because they would never want the media to get a hold of this document...

In that case no need to change anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765281)

I mean, if the sky is falling, why bother making our last days uncomfortable by trying to change anything, might as well just keep it up.

I have environmental institutions just as much as I hate deniers. Look, if you are going to present the argument that we're totally and completely fucked, why wouldn't the rational response be "Let's ignore it because whether or not they're right, there's no difference".

you faIl 1t!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765287)

for tHe project.

Summer Court power grab (0)

kit_triforce (3682453) | about 2 months ago | (#47765291)

Looks like Queen Titania or someone else is making a play for power, Someone call Harry before the ebola viruses get too happy.

Oh Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765303)

A-la gun control, then we should do NOTHING about it! Duh!

World to end unless money changes hands (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47765351)

Give us your money and agree to be poor. Otherwise the world will end and little children will cry.

We'll be spending the next 50 years flying to far-flung conferences, attending fundraising galas, and vacationing at resorts.

You're welcome.

Where should I buy land to offset these changes? (1)

Kevin by the Beach (3600539) | about 2 months ago | (#47765393)

I believe that the climate will change (getting warmer & sea level rise). So, my question is... If I want the best property for possible self sufficiency where would that be? My first thoughts would be a minimum of 50' above sea level, and on the windward side of a large geographic feature (plateau / mountain) . The problem I haven't worked out is the variability of Ocean currents and prevailing winds? Will a currently Dry region increase in Precipitation, or should I stick with regions that get 20+ inches of rain on annual average? (and hope it doesn't change). I grew up on the "Tug Hill" plateau in New York, and their micro climate is influenced by their latitude, altitude, prevailing winds, and proximity to the Great Lakes. It may be a good place to track their micro climate going forward.

Yep, sure is (0)

istartedi (132515) | about 2 months ago | (#47765517)

The San Francisco valley is now a bay. The great barrier kangaroo hunting grounds have been flooded. The Siberian land bridge has been submerged. Irreversible, horrible, and irreparably damaged. Damaged I say! Worse yet, there will be no Frost Faire on the Thames this year.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?