If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   The scariest five charts about climate change you will see until the next hurricane, or heat wave, or flood, or drou-ah fark it. EVERYBODY PANIC   (theatlantic.com) divider line 36
    More: Scary, climate change, Current sea level rise, National Research, ocean acidification, floods, atmospheric carbon dioxide, major wars, Northern Rockies  
•       •       •

11525 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 1:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-29 12:48:36 AM
6 votes:
FTA: 5. Civil wars on the rise

There's stupid, and then there's 'global warming advocate' stupid.
2012-11-29 01:11:37 AM
5 votes:
Here's something scarier: it is going to get much, much worse, and there is no solution in the pipeline:

Here are the CO2 emissions today (actually 2010) in giga tons:

China 8.2
India 2.1
USA 5.5
Rest of World 17.7
Total 33.5

Here are the likely numbers for 2030 with no changes in policy or technology:

China 15
India 8
Rest of the world: ?
USA: ?
Total: Between 40 and 50

Assuming ZERO growth from any other country but China and India, the world total would be 46.2 in 2030, which would represent an increase of a bit less than 40% over 2010.

Let's assume that global climate change is real and anthropogenic. My fellow conservatives: stay with me on this one for now, OK, and let us assume that liberals are right about the fact of climate change and its causes. Don't concede it if you doubt it, but assume it for the purpose of strategizing.

Now that we have assumed that, how could we fix it? See what I'm driving at here? The liberals may be right about the problems, but not necessarily about the solutions. America should not be taking significant measures that would hurt its own economy, because the USA is virtually irrelevant to the future scenarios. If everyone in the USA gives up all technology and lives in trees, or in caves without fires, the world total will still be about 20% more than today by 2030.

And we are pretty much in agreement that today's total is already too high.

China and India are not likely to agree to restrictions on their industrial and economic development, and with good reason. Why would they deny themselves the growth that other nations have already experienced? They have as much right to economic development as every other country. It's not just that these countries are industrializing, but also the hard mathematical reality that they have two and a half billion people between them, something like eight times the population of the USA. It should not be surprising, then, that by 2030 they will between them emit four to five times as much CO2 as the States. Imagine how dire the numbers will be when they reach the USA's level of emissions per person.

As I see it, there is only one way to get CO2 emissions under control. The world needs to get China and India some ultra-clean technology and/or energy sources, and fast. (And retrofit that same technology elsewhere, of course.) Otherwise, assuming that climate change is real and anthropogenic, and that CO2 is the key factor, we are all screwed, and it's gonna get a lot hotter.

Also, since that will probably not happen, mankind being what it is - better at reaction than preparation, and since those two countries will probably realistically continue to increase emissions rapidly for years, maybe decades, I advise all of you to seek high ground in cold climates. The hills overlooking cold coastal cities will not only provide sanctuary from rising ocean levels, but are probably good candidates for increased property values as they get ever closer to becoming beachfront properties in warmer climes.

Oslo: the Miami Beach of the future!
2012-11-29 02:07:58 AM
2 votes:

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Bottom line is that we survived drastic climate change in the past, and we'll survive it in the future.


As a species sure. But our ancestors were more or less self-sufficient producing their own food. We have billions of people wholly reliant on just-in-time food distribution networks have have been optimized until little redundancy remains. If climate change disrupts global food production (e.g. where food can be grown), we could see mass starvation on a unprecedented scale. Eventually humanity would readjust, but not without tremendous cost of human life and suffering.
2012-11-29 01:46:33 AM
2 votes:

acohn: A temperature rise of 5-8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 predicted by these models, plus a rise in CO2 to at least 430 PPM (likely with the increasing economic activity in India and China) spells the end, not only of civilizations, but of all current life on the planet more complex than anaerobic bacteria.


dammitall

See, this is why the Left can't get any respect. Because some of us are as farking dumb and deceitful as the conservatives.

We aren't getting 5-8 degrees by 2100. Worst case is around 3, which is going to suck in many place. Talking crap like ending civilization and destroying all complex life is flat out retarded. 100MM years ago we had temperatures that high and CO2 levels even higher. These changes will drastically impact our lives, but carrying on like it is the end of the world is just not happening.
2012-11-29 01:30:23 AM
2 votes:

Wadded Beef: The earth will be just fine. It's we who are screwed.


In the future, historians will point to Dec. 21, 2012 as the last effective date for reducing the impact from emissions.

/Mayans ftw
//I hope reincarnation isn't real.
2012-11-29 01:30:00 AM
2 votes:
The World Bank is being unknowingly conservative in its estimate of temperature rise. To date, the more extreme climate models have been the most accurate. A temperature rise of 5-8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 predicted by these models, plus a rise in CO2 to at least 430 PPM (likely with the increasing economic activity in India and China) spells the end, not only of civilizations, but of all current life on the planet more complex than anaerobic bacteria.

This is why I'm no longer an environmentalist; the game is lost.
2012-11-29 01:28:14 AM
2 votes:
I dont know, the fact that our drought conditions are the worst in 50 WHOLE years means that there were even worse droughts prior to that...

Meh...
2012-11-29 01:25:52 AM
2 votes:

gerrymander: FTA: 5. Civil wars on the rise

There's stupid, and then there's 'global warming advocate' stupid.


Yeah, no way people will start fighting each other when they run out of water.
2012-11-29 01:22:57 AM
2 votes:
The earth will be just fine. It's we who are screwed.
2012-11-29 11:59:00 AM
1 votes:

maxheck: As I see it, there is only one way to get CO2 emissions under control. The world needs to get China and India some ultra-clean technology and/or energy sources, and fast. (And retrofit that same technology elsewhere, of course.) Otherwise, assuming that climate change is real and anthropogenic, and that CO2 is the key factor, we are all screwed, and it's gonna get a lot hotter.


easier solution...

China and India are the problem right? Have them start a war with each other over something like water shortages, or whatever... Then sell weapons to both sides until they nuke each other back to the stone age.

-It'll also solve our economics problems...

/not serious... well, not serious that we *should* do this, but if it happens, it will probably solve the issue as well.
2012-11-29 10:15:10 AM
1 votes:

0Icky0: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Bottom line is that we survived drastic climate change in the past, and we'll survive it in the future.

How many major cities were located at sea level in 12,000 BC?


We do not know the answer, but there have been many cities swallowed up by the sea.

Here is one: DWARKA 

Here is another: YONAGUNI
2012-11-29 09:11:54 AM
1 votes:
article fails without...

i1207.photobucket.com
2012-11-29 08:35:34 AM
1 votes:
i86.photobucket.com
2012-11-29 07:47:05 AM
1 votes:
2012-11-29 07:20:01 AM
1 votes:
Global warming: It's happened before and it'll happen again. Meh, I'm okay with it.
2012-11-29 07:03:50 AM
1 votes:
Charts 1, 3-5, I could not care less. Chart 2, is of concern, but still not derping ermergerd glerberl wurmin concern. Weather is cyclical, and I'll wait for more rain.
2012-11-29 06:28:29 AM
1 votes:
Yay global warming

1.bp.blogspot.com
2012-11-29 05:43:50 AM
1 votes:

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Bottom line is that we survived drastic climate change in the past, and we'll survive it in the future.


Just barely...
Human near extinction events

Can you imagine what the world will be like when 2000 rich sociopaths in their bunkers are the only survivors?
2012-11-29 03:57:15 AM
1 votes:
I'd be more willing to listen to climate change alarmists if the majority that I've met weren't a bunch of confrontational assholes who make abortion protesters look calm and rational in comparison. In my experience, it has always been about one of the following three things.
1. Moral superiority. They demand you admit the possibility that they could be right, and then run screaming with that tidbit of information with their fingers in their ears proclaiming that you lost the argument.
2. Money. They're representing some group that wants more funding to 'study' the issue (never do something about it, just 'study' it) or wants to raise awareness (in the same way that PETA does). Funny how the environmental groups always want more money to study the issue instead of say, researching new methods to capture carbon from the atmosphere.
3. Self-importance and justification of their existence. They feel that if they yell at enough people about climate change, then they're personally responsible for any lack of the world ending tomorrow. These people genuinely believe that they're 'saving the world' by getting you to recycle more.
2012-11-29 03:45:38 AM
1 votes:

impaler: Gawdzila: Obviously, but what does that lone statement hanging out there by itself mean to you?
You just tossed it out there as if it was supposed to prove something all by itself.

I mean if you concentrate on only the positive feedback loops, as the Ted talk did, and ignore the negative ones, in a chaotic system, your model is wrong.


I really don't think he was providing a complete mathematical description of a model, he was just talking about the most important influences on warming. It may well be that they DO account for negative feedbacks and that they are simply overwhelmed or that they do not have significant effects until far in the future.

You're essentially making an assertion that, not only are they not including them in the model, but that those negative feedbacks are significant enough to stop the warming in the short term. The truth is that you have no idea whether that is actually true, and if you think that it is and that you can make a more accurate model, then go ahead and do it and lend some real support to your hypothesis. Right now you're just making blind conjectures about a model of a chaotic system that you've never actually seen the workings of.
2012-11-29 03:01:41 AM
1 votes:
I notice no one has mentioned the clip of David Roberts yet. Considering how well done his presentation was, that makes me very sad.

cincinnatiredlegs.files.wordpress.com
2012-11-29 02:51:38 AM
1 votes:
This discourse brings to mind....that conservatives could probably win elections for the next several decades if they could wrap their tiny little heads around one simple concept....

The economy IS the environment.
2012-11-29 02:50:49 AM
1 votes:

acohn: The World Bank is being unknowingly conservative in its estimate of temperature rise. To date, the more extreme climate models have been the most accurate. A temperature rise of 5-8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 predicted by these models, plus a rise in CO2 to at least 430 PPM (likely with the increasing economic activity in India and China) spells the end, not only of civilizations, but of all current life on the planet more complex than anaerobic bacteria.

This is why I'm no longer an environmentalist; the game is lost.


Doom, doom, doom.

The guy's Ted talk talked about positive feed back loops, but ignored negative ones.

The ocean conveyor belts bringing warm water to the North stopping. More moisture in the atmosphere making more clouds, increasing albedo, purging us into an ice age, increasing snow increasing the albedo even more.

The system is chaotic, and I mean that in a mathematical sense.

If the positive feedback loops are real, and without matching negative feedback loops, why aren't we already hot? That trapped Carbon was in the atmosphere once already. If it would cause runaway, unstoppable global warming, it would have done it already.

That isn't to say our massive CO2 emissions aren't a problem. It means it could result in more volatile climate, which could be arguably be worse than a constant predictable march to a warmer climate.

We can deal with predictable. The other means the Sahara could get tropical rain falls for a few decades while Iowa gets none, then switch.
2012-11-29 02:41:20 AM
1 votes:
tomasso:

Here's something scarier: it is going to get much, much worse, and there is no solution in the pipeline:

Here are the CO2 emissions today (actually 2010) in giga tons:

China 8.2
India 2.1
USA 5.5
Rest of World 17.7
Total 33.5

Here are the likely numbers for 2030 with no changes in policy or technology:

China 15
India 8
Rest of the world: ?
USA: ?
Total: Between 40 and 50

Assuming ZERO growth from any other country but China and India, the world total would be 46.2 in 2030, which would represent an increase of a bit less than 40% over 2010.

Let's assume that global climate change is real and anthropogenic. My fellow conservatives: stay with me on this one for now, OK, and let us assume that liberals are right about the fact of climate change and its causes. Don't concede it if you doubt it, but assume it for the purpose of strategizing.

Now that we have assumed that, how could we fix it? See what I'm driving at here? The liberals may be right about the problems, but not necessarily about the solutions. America should not be taking significant measures that would hurt its own economy, because the USA is virtually irrelevant to the future scenarios. If everyone in the USA gives up all technology and lives in trees, or in caves without fires, the world total will still be about 20% more than today by 2030.

And we are pretty much in agreement that today's total is already too high.

China and India are not likely to agree to restrictions on their industrial and economic development, and with good reason. Why would they deny themselves the growth that other nations have already experienced? They have as much right to economic development as every other country. It's not just that these countries are industrializing, but also the hard mathematical reality that they have two and a half billion people between them, something like eight times the population of the USA. It should not be surprising, then, that by 2030 they will between them emit four to five times as much CO2 as the States. Imagine how dire the numbers will be when they reach the USA's level of emissions per person.

As I see it, there is only one way to get CO2 emissions under control. The world needs to get China and India some ultra-clean technology and/or energy sources, and fast. (And retrofit that same technology elsewhere, of course.) Otherwise, assuming that climate change is real and anthropogenic, and that CO2 is the key factor, we are all screwed, and it's gonna get a lot hotter.

Also, since that will probably not happen, mankind being what it is - better at reaction than preparation, and since those two countries will probably realistically continue to increase emissions rapidly for years, maybe decades, I advise all of you to seek high ground in cold climates. The hills overlooking cold coastal cities will not only provide sanctuary from rising ocean levels, but are probably good candidates for increased property values as they get ever closer to becoming beachfront properties in warmer climes.

Oslo: the Miami Beach of the future!


I love this argument. The immensely fat guy at the buffet with four plates in front of him points to the four skinny guys sitting next to him with one plate apiece and says "What? They ate just as much as I did!"

By your own estimation, we presently produce 1/3 as much as China will in 2030 with 1/4 of the present population of China, not to mention what it's population would be in 2030.

America should not be taking significant measures that would hurt its own economy, because the USA is virtually irrelevant to the future scenarios. If everyone in the USA gives up all technology and lives in trees, or in caves without fires, the world total will still be about 20% more than today by 2030.

And the "live in caves" strawman comes out. Yep. Those libs in your head are practically *screaming* for that. Conservation is so damn hard there in mom's basement. Did that flourescent light hurt your eyes? Did a windmill chop up your favorite budgie when it got out? Are you allergic to nukes and solar panels? You may be a "conservative" slightly removed from reality.

China and India are not likely to agree to restrictions on their industrial and economic development, and with good reason. Why would they deny themselves the growth that other nations have already experienced?

Funny thing that. Without signing treaties, China has managed to get a higher percentage of it's energy from renewables than than the US.

They don't want to sign a treaty. They're the 800 pound gorilla, and you should recognize the same behavior in the US not signing the same treaties. They know it makes good economic sense and they act on that, but they're not going to tie themselves to other countries.

In the meantime, China has become both the largest producer and (more interestingly) the largest *consumer* of solar and wind tech.

Gosh... How did that happen? Maybe because they learned from the Japanese. If you were aware in the 70's, the Japanese targeted what they thought was a market ripe for picking. Steel production. It was all set for whoever could innovate, modernize and outproduce someone else, so the Japanese government poured huge amounts of money into the industry to make it happen... And they stomped the US steelmakers into oblivion. They screwed things up later, and lost to (wait for it) the Chinese, but for a while there they were the kings of steel.

China figured out some time ago that "dumping" cheap technology and outproducing anyone else will make them dominant in any venue they want, and it's been working so far. Right now the war is about renewable energy. Guess who has a plan as opposed to a bunch of bickering twits who get their information from blogs put out by the steel petroleum industry?
2012-11-29 02:21:30 AM
1 votes:
None of the climate deniers need worry. They will be dead before the worst hits.

I laugh at the "we are leaving our kids with a huge deficit" idiots who turn right around and deny climate change.
2012-11-29 02:19:33 AM
1 votes:

gerrymander: fusillade762: gerrymander: FTA: 5. Civil wars on the rise

There's stupid, and then there's 'global warming advocate' stupid.

Yeah, no way people will start fighting each other when they run out of water.

Quick question: since the Arab Spring is one major driver of this the recent rise in this index, in how many Arab Spring-related conflict states has "lack of water" been identified as an underlying cause for the riots, etc.?

Just because something would cause unrest doesn't mean it has. 

/You know what else will cause riots?
//Aliens.
///I'm not saying it was aliens, but...


It doesn't get mentioned often, but water rights are a major sticking point between Israelis and Palestinians.

Water war leaves Palestinians thirsty

And this:

"I have [former Israeli prime minister] Ariel Sharon speaking on record saying the reason for going to war [against Arab armies] in 1967 was for water," Darwish told Al Jazeera.

Some analysts believe Israel continues to occupy the Golan heights, seized from Syria in 1967, due to issues of water control, while others think the occupation is about maintaining high ground in case of future conflicts.

Senegal and Mauritania also fought a war starting in 1989 over grazing rights on the River Senegal. And Syria and Iraq have fought minor skirmishes over the Euphrates River.
2012-11-29 02:12:05 AM
1 votes:
Natural selection's a biatch, huh
2012-11-29 02:10:36 AM
1 votes:

nmemkha: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Bottom line is that we survived drastic climate change in the past, and we'll survive it in the future.

As a species sure. But our ancestors were more or less self-sufficient producing their own food. We have billions of people wholly reliant on just-in-time food distribution networks have have been optimized until little redundancy remains. If climate change disrupts global food production (e.g. where food can be grown), we could see mass starvation on a unprecedented scale. Eventually humanity would readjust, but not without tremendous cost of human life and suffering.


I also would like to add that we have commoditized food so that it might not take huge shortages to cause suffering. Instead, many could be priced out of eating as speculation drives up the cost of the shorted supply.
2012-11-29 02:08:04 AM
1 votes:
Yeah, yeah, yeah... climate changes. Always has and always will. You could pick any time in the planet's history and come up with five "scary" charts about how changing climate will affect the future.
2012-11-29 02:07:12 AM
1 votes:
You are the architects of your own demise.
2012-11-29 02:03:58 AM
1 votes:
Look - I am not a skeptic, and do agree with the science. But I am not panicking: every hitherto doomsday scenario predicted this past century has come to naught.

Every age dreams its own apocalypse.
2012-11-29 01:52:21 AM
1 votes:

fusillade762: gerrymander: FTA: 5. Civil wars on the rise

There's stupid, and then there's 'global warming advocate' stupid.

Yeah, no way people will start fighting each other when they run out of water.


Quick question: since the Arab Spring is one major driver of this the recent rise in this index, in how many Arab Spring-related conflict states has "lack of water" been identified as an underlying cause for the riots, etc.?

Just because something would cause unrest doesn't mean it has

/You know what else will cause riots?
//Aliens.
///I'm not saying it was aliens, but...
2012-11-29 01:49:02 AM
1 votes:

gerrymander: FTA: 5. Civil wars on the rise

There's stupid, and then there's 'global warming advocate' stupid.


There's stupid, and there's wingnut, climate-change denier stupid.

In case you weren't aware, the Pentagon's internal analysis suggests climate-change is going to cause wars, yes, including civil-wars.

/Head in the sand is no way to go through life son
2012-11-29 01:46:55 AM
1 votes:
cdn.theatlantic.com 

And that's just in Detroit
2012-11-29 01:38:49 AM
1 votes:
Bottom line is that we survived drastic climate change in the past, and we'll survive it in the future.
2012-11-29 01:21:37 AM
1 votes:
Thomas Malthus told me this will all work itself out in the end....one way or the other
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report