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.

(BusinessWeek)   If the climate continues to worsen, outdoor workers will need twice as many breaks by 2050 due to heat stress say scientists, completely ignoring the fact we'll have giant robots to do all our work for us by then   (businessweek.com) divider line 25
    More: Interesting, giant robots, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, physical scientist, construction workers, Mississippi Valley  
•       •       •

1515 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Feb 2013 at 7:45 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
2013-02-25 08:54:20 AM
4 votes:

Deep Contact: According to Al Gore. The only thing that will fix this is to give more money to Al Gore.


Ahhh ... deniers and their secret love affair with Al Gore.

Nobody on the planet cares about or ever talks about Al Gore except the American anti-science movement. You guys have a collective hard-on the size of Montana for him. What does your shrink say about this infatuation?
2013-02-25 08:05:08 AM
4 votes:
Actually, the smokers will "need" twice as many breaks, where as the rest of us will continue to work tirelessly while we pick up the slack, as we have for all of written history.
2013-02-25 07:56:47 AM
4 votes:
If the climate continues to worsen, outdoor workers will need twice as many breaks be quickly and efficiently replaced by their employers whenever they collapse in their tracks by 2050 due to heat stress say scientists, completely ignoring the fact we'll have giant robots to do all our work for us by then

Fixed. I'm not exactly optimistic about our future at this point.
2013-02-25 08:59:41 AM
2 votes:

BiffDangler: Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Now, isnt there SOME place in the world that overall will see a benefit? Think about it this way: the climate has been changing for tens of thousands of years. It can't be that change is always bad, or else one would have to say that each incremental change makes the world as a whole worse off, which would imply that, say, 100,000 years ago the earth must have been a virtual paradise everywhere.


Think of it this way - people adapt to their surroundings. As our surroundings change, we can either adapt or migrate. 100,000 years ago, the only way to move were those two things at the end of your legs, and competition for resources involved bits of stone held to the end of a stick with dead animal skin. This meant that migration involved small groups of people traveling slowly and having little battles over scarce resources.

This in no way resembles the world we live in today. We just don't occupy the sort of world where entire latitudes can be decimated by climate change and other countries won't be negatively affected.
2013-02-25 08:50:37 AM
2 votes:

Ilmarinen: You could say that change will create a new equilibrium. Some species will benefit, others will not. Likewise, some humans will and others won't. It's just that nowadays we've arranged humans in such large groups (i.e. countries) and occupy just about every inhabitable spot on earth, that every group will experience some radical change. We're not prepared for great changes


It isn't just temperature ... if it was then Canada and Russia would be loving it.

The fact is that even a 1° increase in the atmosphere and/or oceans represents a massive amount energy added to the system. This energy comes out as unpredictable weather and more extreme storms more often.
2013-02-25 08:18:02 AM
2 votes:
Every year we have at least one farm worker die from the heat in my area. Every year there's a big brouhaha about how there are laws already in place requiring sanitation facilities, frequent breaks in shaded areas, easy access to potable water and other measures to prevent heat related death and every year we are reminded that the owners of some of these farms ignore the law. There is not enough personnel to go around to police all of the large growers in this area, so they know the chances they get caught ignoring the law will be very slim. I really don't see employers in 2050, especially in high heat environments (which are usually low paying), don't behaving any differently regarding the law and worker safety than some in the agriculture industry in my area already behave.
2013-02-25 08:10:00 AM
2 votes:

untaken_name: CeroX: 2050

Alternatively, scaremongers pick numbers far enough in the future that they'll never be called on their inaccurate predictions. Or some other answer.


that would be fine if it was a handful of people you could consider "scaremongers", but considering it's 90%+ scientists, including NASA... I don't consider NASA a scaremonger...

I think people look for justification in not making changes in their lives: "It's all scare tactics" "Here's one report suggesting the opposite of the 10,000 other reports about it, so it's disputed!" "You can't believe everything you read, so it can't be true!"

All the old arguments are the same, and they all boil down to "I don't WANT to make changes in my life because changing my bad habits is too hard!"
2013-02-25 07:57:02 AM
2 votes:
2050

That's why most people are against the climate change models, because they all come to a head 50 years from now... They don't give 2 shiats about their children or grand children's lives, they only care about what the weather is doing today...

"It's cold today, so there's no reason to believe i should have to change anything i'm doing now"

"However, if you continue to be destructive, there will be significant complications in 2050"

"2050?! Who the fark cares about 2050?! I'll be long dead by then, so explain to me again why I have to change my habits now?"
2013-02-26 01:24:09 AM
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: Slam1263: At the risk of repeating myself, does Canada pay for all of its citizens to move about the country?

I've clearly stated twice that I was presenting the case where people paid for themselves. Your question is idiotic ... and you keep repeating it. What does that say about you?

Why do I ask? You are too pathetic to actually answer questions. You just repeat your idiotic drivel over and over.


Actually I didn't bother reading anything you had written, your Canadien. I do not care what you think of the US.

Never cared, never will.

Damnhippyfreak: Slam1263: Farking Canuck: Slam1263: Farking Canuck: Are you suggesting that this kind of migration, entire cities, paid for by the individual citizens affected will not have serious costs to the government and serious impacts on the economy?

Sorry my friendly bigot from the North, I am not Thai. Not sure why you tossed Siam in there.

Oh, more dreams, this time of the lost colonies of an extinct empire. Nice. Obscure, but I should have been on my toes.

Wow. Close to word salad there. I'm not sure exactly what is the point you're trying to get across - it might be helpful if you could narrow it down and state your point clearly.


Well Sir, I will apologize in advance if you are a Madam, let me put it in terms you may understand.

Duude, you know, like when you are coming off reds, and everyting is starting to get back to normal speed, but you have to take a leak, and you stand up, and things start to stretch, man.

I mean really stretch, each step seems like it's 20 feet long, man, twenty feet long, man. Each step is like twenty feet long, man. And you think to yourself, but it's not yourself your talking too, man, it's like, it's like, it's like, man, dude, the universe, man. Twenty feet long, man.

Where was I man, heh, heh, heh, where are any of us in the grand scheme of things, dude? Where? Where, are we in all, hey, are the Cheetos dude? Yeah, wow, did, did, did you see that? WTF was that man?

Yeah, I can totally sense where you're coming from, I live in my van, dude. I'm a free spirit, dude, the MAN can't keep me down, no way. I'll be freeer when they take of my ankle monitor, dude.

Like a free bird, dude, man just like free bird. man.

And in closing, let me simple state, climate change is happening, has been happening, and will continue to happen. With or without human intervention.

I am a realist, a realist with a couple of college degrees that give me a scintilla of critical thinking skills, but only a scintilla, not an iota more, I really did care more back in the 60's, the 70's, the 80's, and the 90's,  when we thought we were really going to experience a new Ice Age. I don't like being cold, heats ok, I know what Black Flag Conditions are, and can easily handle that.

My Arts degree, Mechanical Engineering, led to my understanding of how much humans have had to adapt to changing conditions, and we do it so well.

My Science degree, International Business, especially in regards to statistical analysis, leads me to suspect that the methodology being presented, isn't exactly robust. I understand it is peer reviewed, but so was every bit of the Coming Ice Age datum.

All according to the same models, methodology, and with a few new players, the institutes of higher learning that are leading the current parade.

Money, I understand money. And I am trying to keep an open mind about the causes of climate change, I have children, and grand children, whom I wish the very best for. But the current climate change scheme seems to be more about money and control.

I don't think it is a vast conspiracy, honestly. Just a dedicated group of people trying to gin up some very basic wants; money, and the power it gives them.

I can understand greedy people, they have very simple motives. I don't have to like them, but I can understand.

 

worthlessjuan: Back in the 60's we were going to reach peak oil by 1990 and man caused climate change would produce an ice age by 2000, 2010 at the latest.  Something about airplane contrails and smokestacks obscuring the sun.

I'm so confused.  All of our crop lands were going to freeze their crops.  Land values in the south would skyrocket due to population relocation. Harbors would become useless due to lowered water levels.

I read somewhere that Mars and Venus were getting warmer, maybe due to sun influence, not likely man.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm all for smarter and more efficient, but sheesh people . . . .


Exactly, if you can remember the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's you've seen this picture show before.

It didn't pan out the way they emphatically stated it would. Lowell Ponte, and all the other prognosticators failed on every single prediction.

It made me more skeptical, and I now demand demonstrable results, and with the October surprise from the EACRU, that being their report that, uhm, maybe their model is wrong, I don't see that happening. Bhut let them get back to the drawing board, and come up with a complete new plan. Try being honest this time. Because every time you massage the crap out of the datum to get a desired result, you massage the crap into the data.

I too am all for the absolute, most efficient use of our natural resources, even with all the hysteria, as you pointed out, about peak oil, peak water, loss of rain forests, we do have a finite amout of resources. It's an unknown finite, but still its a finite amount.

I used to design solar panels for satellites, and because of my knowledge of them, I know that we are barking up the wrong tree. We hit the apex on current technology 15 years ago. And it doesn't make me happy to state this; solar cells are great for outerspace, but you will consume more energy producing them, than they will ever output. By a factor 4. Their biggest flaw maybe that they use enormous amounts of water in production, about 500,000 gallons per square meter. Or the equivalent of ten yearly average households of water use. To produce 15 watts hours of energy, for 15 years, if conditions are optimal.

We use them in outerspace because nuclear generators need too much shielding to be effective, and our extension cords will not reach that far. They are not "there" yet, but we should keep researching for ways to improve that. Just stop covering the freaking countyside with the damned things, for now.

Wind turbines are great, but they are ugly, and the are very unreliable. On the bright side, you can produce enough energy with them to produce more windmills, or even solar cells.

Living in the NW, you have to understand the average Oregonian, or Washingtonian, mindset, we are fiercely proud of the natural splendor that surrounds us. Turbines are a worse blight than any air pollution we ever had.

The Bonneville Power Administration was emplaced before the area had 250,000 people. So we never had huge smoke belching coal fired anything. Just cheap and abundant hydro-electric. Our air was cleaner, our water was cleaner, the ground was less developed simply because there were fewer people. Some of our local leaders, Oregon Governor Tom McCall especially, but to an extent Sen. Bob Duncan, saw to it that laws were implemented to protect out resources. But we spend huge amounts keeping it that way, maybe to the point that it is hindering reasonable development.

This leads me to clean air.

Since we have reduced the fine particulate matter that US, and UK, industry produces to fewer than 4% of 1960 levels, we have taken away one of the biggest assumptions from the New Ice Age theorist, the Umbrella Effect. The Umbrella effect was suppose to cool the Earth to a "Tipping Point", where global cooling would accelerate. It didn't happen because they scared the bejeesus out of us, and we made drastic changes.

Maybe we did too good of a job, not that I am complaining, I like my lungs, it's my kidneys that deserve punishment. We, humans did cause area warming, and some winter cooling because we got rid of the artificial particulate from the atmosphere.

Is this a bad thing? Hell no. Should we be freaking out? Only at the cost of every crank scheme that is foisted off on us.

I still believe in conservation, except that they now use that to beat up the average consumer up over every freaking thing we use. Especially water, and power, because the utilities need to make their money, and to a great extent they do, but there came and went a point, when the average consumer figured it was a form of a scam, and that is where we are today.

I am not a Fascist, but if any utility that entered a private home was state owned, and that was they only revenue the State received, I'd be cool with it. Except I understand that they would more than likely screw that up too.

I have friends that are astrowhatsits, and they usually claim that solar output is the largest contributor to Earth's climate. One used to use the ants analogy.

If the Earth was only a few hundred miles wide, and ants were the size of humans, we'd still only have as much effect on global enviroment, as the bacteria in the ants guts have on the Moon.

That's some deep thinking there, twenty feet worth.
2013-02-25 07:50:59 PM
1 votes:

RastaKins: Girion47: RastaKins: Losses in labor capacity, or the ability to work safely in warm conditions, will double by mid-century assuming global temperatures rise by 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit)...

Today is 2 degrees warmer than yesterday. I will petition my boss for double breaks today.

go work outside or some steam tunnels while wearing tyvek, steel toe boots, and a hard hat.  Then come back and make fun of worker breaks because of heat.


Serious? Do you find seasons debilitating? Average temperatures change in the US 41.2°F every half year!

Man has proven to be an adaptable critter. Example: The Imperial Valley is a huge agricultural center. Its location was selected precisely because of the hot temperatures. The average high in June, July, August and September are above 100F. This place has been farmed starting 120 years ago, you know, back when the place was 2°F cooler.


Perhaps part of being an adaptable critter is taking extra breaks when it gets hot.
2013-02-25 06:22:58 PM
1 votes:

Slam1263: Yes. I am looking at you dumb asses that live by water.

PAY FOR YOUR OWN STUFF.


Are you suggesting that this kind of migration, entire cities, paid for by the individual citizens affected will not have serious costs to the government and serious impacts on the economy?
2013-02-25 03:45:17 PM
1 votes:

Slam1263: Who would even contemplate moving a city of millions, when all you have to do is move humans to new dwellings?

NYC is where it is, because of trade. Not because of abundant natural resources.


Are you going to pay to move the humans, and all the infrastructure that supports them? And where to, given that they're where they are because their work is there?

And more important, are you going to pay to move the Port of New York to somewhere that isn't underwater? Where?

Of course it's not impossible. It is, however, breathtakingly expensive. And that money doesn't fall out of the sky; someone has to pay for it. That someone being all of us.

You're talking about relocating something that has been constructed over a period of centuries in, at most, a matter of decades. That expense will be paid by everyone who uses something that was shipped through these port cities. By everyone who uses something that was manufactured in these port cities (many are major manufacturing hubs due to their access to shipping and materials). By everyone who uses fuel that was refined or transshipped in one of these cities. By everyone who uses something that, in some other way, touched one of these cities. "Let's just relocate the people in New York, and Newark, and Boston, and Philadelphia, and Washington, and Charleston, and Savannah, and Mobile, and Houston, and Galveston, and San Diego, and Long Beach, and Los Angeles, and San Francisco, and ... and ... and ... and many, many more ... and all the infrastructure ... isn't so easy.

You think the price of gasoline is high now? What do you think it will be like when all the Gulf coastal refineries have to move to higher ground? And all the oil terminals? And all the port facilities that service incoming supertankers?

You like your cheap imported stuff from China? It won't be so cheap if you have to pay to relocate the Port of Long Beach, and the multiple square miles of buildings, rail lines, freeways, etc., that support it. And where exactly are you going to put it, anyway? That part of the west coast has a bit of a problem with mountains; there are no good areas to put ports other than the ones they're in right now.

Our port facilities are located in places that will be disproportionally affected by any changes that cause a rise in sea levels. Those are, after all, the best places to build ports in. When they were built, people assumed the existing topography was "how it was" and nothing would ever change. (they never considered, say, Ostia) We're looking at pretty much every major port having the same problems as Venice.

It's not cheap. It's not simple. It's not cheap. It's not easy. Oh, and did I say it's not cheap? This is not just "tell people to move". It's oil refineries and container ship facilities underwater, ports submerging with nowhere to go. The faster things change, the more expensive responding to them becomes. Even if we can't keep things the way they were when we built our ports and coastal settlements where they are, even slowing down the rate of change starts looking cost-effective.
2013-02-25 12:16:31 PM
1 votes:

DubtodaIll: Believe it or not, people are able to toughen up in tough conditions.  If you put a pansy scientist out in the heat it will be about 3 minutes before he starts sweating and 3 1/2 minutes before he starts whining.

Why are our adaptive capabilites (the best in the natural order) always ignored when making predictions??


People who want to ignore such analyses because of our fabled "adaptive capabilities" remind of the story about the man trapped on a roof, refusing to be rescued because he believes God will save him. Our adaptive capabilities are neurological, not biological - it's our ability to analyse, plan and make predictions which allows us to adapt to different circumstances. Analysing the situation, making predictions, then planning for outdoor workers needing twice as much rest due to the problem of heat stress is an example of the human capacity for adaptation.
2013-02-25 11:14:18 AM
1 votes:
Haha, more breaks.  They'll continue to do what they do now:  work people nearly to death.  When my dad was a construction worker he said he'd see 60 year old men with bad backs being screamed at every time they sat down or so much tried to catch their breath.  They never lasted more than a couple of months before they keeled over.
2013-02-25 10:56:52 AM
1 votes:

BiffDangler: Think about it this way: the climate has been changing for tens of thousands of years. It can't be that change is always bad, or else one would have to say that each incremental change makes the world as a whole worse off, which would imply that, say, 100,000 years ago the earth must have been a virtual paradise everywhere.


The basic problem is that our entire current infrastructure and settlement patterns are based on the climate the way it has been for the recent past. We have built cities in places that have reasonable weather, an adequate water supply, and often a seaport. You can't just dig up NYC or Tokyo and move it somewhere better if the reasons it was built where it is changes.
2013-02-25 08:48:22 AM
1 votes:
Guest workers get deported if they ask for breaks and they're a lot cheaper than robots.

Yay indentured servitude!
2013-02-25 08:39:42 AM
1 votes:

BiffDangler: Thanks, that's what I was looking for.  Now, isnt there SOME place in the world that overall will see a benefit?  Think about it this way:  the climate has been changing for tens of thousands of years.  It can't be that change is always bad, or else one would have to say that each incremental change makes the world as a whole worse off, which would imply that, say, 100,000 years ago the earth must have been a virtual paradise everywhere.


You could say that change will create a new equilibrium. Some species will benefit, others will not. Likewise, some humans will and others won't. It's just that nowadays we've arranged humans in such large groups (i.e. countries) and occupy just about every inhabitable spot on earth, that every group will experience some radical change. We're not prepared for great changes.
2013-02-25 08:24:01 AM
1 votes:
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride all the way into your mouth through a findus frozen lasagna...
2013-02-25 08:22:57 AM
1 votes:
Pfff...There's no such thing as climate.

You can't fool me with facts and data.
2013-02-25 08:22:24 AM
1 votes:

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: If the climate continues to worsen, outdoor workers will need twice as many breaks be quickly and efficiently replaced by their employers whenever they collapse in their tracks by 2050 due to heat stress say scientists, completely ignoring the fact we'll have giant robots to do all our work for us by then

Fixed. I'm not exactly optimistic about our future at this point.


Someone dock that c***k a day's pay for nappin' on the job.
2013-02-25 08:17:56 AM
1 votes:

BiffDangler: Yet, there MUST be at least ONE place in the world that will become better off if it averages a few degrees warmer. Where is that place?


Lots of places. Just as one small example, Indiana has been growing grapes for wine since the French settled the area, but it's a bit on the cold side. As the temperatures increase, more traditional growing areas are moving into the "just a bit too hot" range, and Indiana is getting consistently better wines.

But having rising sea levels creating huge numbers of emigrants, a more unstable climate, and all the other negative effects far outweigh the benefits.
2013-02-25 08:11:45 AM
1 votes:

randomjsa: Just like the increased number of severe hurricanes we were going to have by this time.

Just like the almost non existent snow fall we were going to have by this time.

Just like the hundreds of thousands of climate change refuges we were going to have by this time.


uh, no, not by this time, by 2050, as they have always been...
2013-02-25 08:06:24 AM
1 votes:
Nah, everybody will be commuting to Earth orbit via 3D-printed space elevators.

/amidoinitrite?
2013-02-25 08:05:24 AM
1 votes:
Just like the increased number of severe hurricanes we were going to have by this time.

Just like the almost non existent snow fall we were going to have by this time.

Just like the hundreds of thousands of climate change refuges we were going to have by this time.
2013-02-25 07:59:17 AM
1 votes:

CeroX: 2050


Alternatively, scaremongers pick numbers far enough in the future that they'll never be called on their inaccurate predictions. Or some other answer.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report