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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Krauthammer: "Climate Change is a superstition, like the rain dance, or the Old Testament." I'm sure the Fox crowd will love that last part   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 319
    More: Stupid, Charles Krauthammer, Old Testament, Native Americans, climate change  
•       •       •

2210 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 5:00 PM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



319 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-08 02:17:47 PM  
 
2014-05-08 02:35:45 PM  
I'm sure there will be much metamucil sprayed across TV and computer screens upon hearing that line, Chuck.
 
2014-05-08 02:39:41 PM  
I've actually begun to worry recently that we've gotten past the point of irreversibility, and that my generation (I'm 29) might be the last to die in a relatively comfortable world. I don't know what to do about that. It's kind of terrifying.
 
2014-05-08 02:41:22 PM  
Republicans will bravely stand against the tyranny of the world's scientists and boldly strike at the heart of today's climate troubles...

www.latinorebels.com

...by praying for rain

WTF is up with these guys?
 
2014-05-08 02:52:49 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Republicans will bravely stand against the tyranny of the world's scientists and boldly strike at the heart of today's climate troubles...

[www.latinorebels.com image 300x198]

...by praying for rain

WTF is up with these guys?


Prayers for rain? When these guys do it, it's awesome.

Link
 
2014-05-08 02:55:06 PM  
Charles can't taste it, smell it, or so it, so it must not exist in his world.
 
2014-05-08 03:03:04 PM  
Praying for rain works.  Our last gov, Sonny, led a prayer vigil for rain and sure enough, 6 months later it rained.
 
2014-05-08 03:12:49 PM  

DamnYankees: I've actually begun to worry recently that we've gotten past the point of irreversibility, and that my generation (I'm 29) might be the last to die in a relatively comfortable world.


There are several positive feedback loops that once set in motion are irreversible during anything other than a couple hundred thousand year timeline. The Siberian permafrost and the methane trapped underneath it is the big one. Once that hits the tipping point, it's pretty much game over for humanity. We could end all emissions all over the world instantaneously and it wouldn't matter anymore. It would be out of our hands completely.
 
2014-05-08 03:21:25 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: DamnYankees: I've actually begun to worry recently that we've gotten past the point of irreversibility, and that my generation (I'm 29) might be the last to die in a relatively comfortable world.

There are several positive feedback loops that once set in motion are irreversible during anything other than a couple hundred thousand year timeline. The Siberian permafrost and the methane trapped underneath it is the big one. Once that hits the tipping point, it's pretty much game over for humanity. We could end all emissions all over the world instantaneously and it wouldn't matter anymore. It would be out of our hands completely.


And then what? Genuinely, what are we supposed to do? Cower and die? I have a genuine fear of lying on my deathbed and knowing that my children and grandchildren are going to live out their short lives in a dying and broken world. It's the selfish part of me which is grateful that *probably* won't happen during my lifetime, but that's not a ton of consolation.
 
2014-05-08 03:25:41 PM  
I wish I could do a dance and drown Krauthammer in a shower of dicks.
 
2014-05-08 03:32:06 PM  

DamnYankees: And then what? Genuinely, what are we supposed to do? Cower and die?


Hundreds of millions will die. Hundreds of millions more will be displaced. We're already going to blow past +2C, which is Bad. Anything above +5C is Very Very (insert many Verys) Bad. Amsterdam, New York, and Bangkok are underwater. Most of central Europe is a desert. 40-50% less yields of corn and wheat.The oceans will be 150% more acidic, so all coral life is gone. All the species that rely on coral is gone, and species that rely on those species, etc. Half of all known species on the planet are dead. More frequent and intense storms. Wetter wets, drier drys, hotter hots, colder colds. "Incompatible with an organized global community" as one scientist put it. You get the idea. Above +5C the temperature starts to get too hot to live. Not, "this is uncomfortable, turn on the AC hot", rather "if I spend more than 10 minutes outside I could die" hot. Some of humanity may be able to survive living in caves. But that's surviving, not really living. The word "catastrophic" is being used more and more. Catastrophic may turn out to be an understatement.
 
2014-05-08 03:34:15 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Hundreds of millions will die. Hundreds of millions more will be displaced. We're already going to blow past +2C, which is Bad. Anything above +5C is Very Very (insert many Verys) Bad. Amsterdam, New York, and Bangkok are underwater. Most of central Europe is a desert. 40-50% less yields of corn and wheat.The oceans will be 150% more acidic, so all coral life is gone. All the species that rely on coral is gone, and species that rely on those species, etc. Half of all known species on the planet are dead. More frequent and intense storms. Wetter wets, drier drys, hotter hots, colder colds. "Incompatible with an organized global community" as one scientist put it. You get the idea. Above +5C the temperature starts to get too hot to live. Not, "this is uncomfortable, turn on the AC hot", rather "if I spend more than 10 minutes outside I could die" hot. Some of humanity may be able to survive living in caves. But that's surviving, not really living. The word "catastrophic" is being used more and more. Catastrophic may turn out to be an understatement.


I guess the question becomes that when that time comes, who among us will have the opportunity to tap out by choice.
 
2014-05-08 03:38:02 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: DamnYankees: And then what? Genuinely, what are we supposed to do? Cower and die?

Hundreds of millions will die. Hundreds of millions more will be displaced. We're already going to blow past +2C, which is Bad. Anything above +5C is Very Very (insert many Verys) Bad. Amsterdam, New York, and Bangkok are underwater. Most of central Europe is a desert. 40-50% less yields of corn and wheat.The oceans will be 150% more acidic, so all coral life is gone. All the species that rely on coral is gone, and species that rely on those species, etc. Half of all known species on the planet are dead. More frequent and intense storms. Wetter wets, drier drys, hotter hots, colder colds. "Incompatible with an organized global community" as one scientist put it. You get the idea. Above +5C the temperature starts to get too hot to live. Not, "this is uncomfortable, turn on the AC hot", rather "if I spend more than 10 minutes outside I could die" hot. Some of humanity may be able to survive living in caves. But that's surviving, not really living. The word "catastrophic" is being used more and more. Catastrophic may turn out to be an understatement.


I think what you're saying is that we should pray more so Jesus will come down from the heavens with some ice cold lemonade.
 
2014-05-08 03:40:02 PM  

DamnYankees: Dusk-You-n-Me: DamnYankees: I've actually begun to worry recently that we've gotten past the point of irreversibility, and that my generation (I'm 29) might be the last to die in a relatively comfortable world.

There are several positive feedback loops that once set in motion are irreversible during anything other than a couple hundred thousand year timeline. The Siberian permafrost and the methane trapped underneath it is the big one. Once that hits the tipping point, it's pretty much game over for humanity. We could end all emissions all over the world instantaneously and it wouldn't matter anymore. It would be out of our hands completely.

And then what? Genuinely, what are we supposed to do? Cower and die? I have a genuine fear of lying on my deathbed and knowing that my children and grandchildren are going to live out their short lives in a dying and broken world. It's the selfish part of me which is grateful that *probably* won't happen during my lifetime, but that's not a ton of consolation.


We haven't passed any point that bad. The really, really bad stuff is still preventable. Either we cut back on emissions or we fark ourselves over. I don't think I quite buy into the whole extinction-level event badness, but certainly not a world we're familiar with will be on the horizon.

Even if we get our collective shiat together and jettison all the climate deniers into the sun, we have already set in motion some things that require attention. Primarily, fresh water access, ocean acidification and current changes resulting from temperature and ocean level changes.

There are a lot of people who depend on the ocean for food. There are a lot of freshwater stores that are being drained faster than they're being replenished. Look forward to more and deeper droughts in traditionally fertile farmlands and the rapid emptying of the aquifers that support those farms.

All that sounds bad, but it isn't nearly as bad as keeping on our current tack. Someone should pray for the wealthy industrialists because regulation makes the baby Ayn cry.
 
2014-05-08 03:42:59 PM  

dr_blasto: I don't think I quite buy into the whole extinction-level event badness, but certainly not a world we're familiar with will be on the horizon.


I guess my question was that if we're looking at a long time horizon, how is it NOT an extinction event?

If, for example, we agree that in the next 100 years the temperature were to go up 4 degrees Celsius (totally making up numbers, I have no idea), isn't there a hidden presumption in that claim that over 200 years, the temperature would go up 10 degrees? If we're not able to stop us over a 100 year time horizon, what sane person thinks we'll get to the year 2114 and not already be farked? It'll just be a countdown to the end at that point, right?
 
2014-05-08 03:47:01 PM  
"These are things that people negotiate the way that you would negotiate a bill, because the science is unstable," he added. "Because in the case of climate, the models are changeable and because climate is so complicated, the idea that we who have trouble forecasting what's going to happen on Saturday in the climate could pretend to be predicting what could happen in 30, 40 years is absurd."

He's a cagey old bitter bastard.  I'll give him that.

What's equally absurd is this:

Our atmosphere is a fixed volume, and a relatively small one one.  And that in the past 100 to 150 years we've been pouring ever increasing amounts of CO2 and pollutants.  That is a very short period for alot of "stuff" when you consider the whole of Earth's history.

Common sense and a rudimentary understanding of science will tell you that is going to have some impact.

The fact that the models and predictions may be rough and inaccurate is not sufficient reason to dismiss the idea that human activity over the last few centuries is having some impact on our climate, even if we lack precision on what that impact might be.  THAT is what is absurd.

And the changes that may occur will have a very large impact on us and our lives because we've developed the modern world during a period of relative stability.  Look at the impact of one unusually strong storm like Katrina or Sandy.  I'm not saying they were caused by climate change, but their impact is undeniable.

And his conflation of specific climate science models and Einstein is pure sophistry.
 
2014-05-08 03:48:48 PM  

Diogenes: Our atmosphere is a fixed volume


Is that true? Why can't our atmosphere theoretically increase in size? Seems like it should be able to.
 
2014-05-08 03:51:01 PM  

dr_blasto: I don't think I quite buy into the whole extinction-level event badness


"There have been three major greenhouse phases in the time period we analyzed and the peaks in temperature of each coincide with mass extinctions," says ecologist Peter Mayhew of the University of York in England. Link
 
2014-05-08 03:51:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: dr_blasto: I don't think I quite buy into the whole extinction-level event badness

"There have been three major greenhouse phases in the time period we analyzed and the peaks in temperature of each coincide with mass extinctions," says ecologist Peter Mayhew of the University of York in England. Link


There's a difference between a mass extinction and the extinction of our particular species.
 
2014-05-08 03:57:13 PM  

DamnYankees: Diogenes: Our atmosphere is a fixed volume

Is that true? Why can't our atmosphere theoretically increase in size? Seems like it should be able to.


Eeesh.  If pollutants can affect the climate, I shudder to think what changing the chemistry, amount, and stratifications of the atmosphere would do.

I think you'd have to tinker with gravity and pressure and density to change all that.

But that kind of circles back to my point.  Human life as we know has been relatively short given the planet's life.  Small changes to the world as we've known it will have major impacts on us.  Especially as we've complicated our existence (reliance on centralized utilities/resources for our necessities, for example).
 
2014-05-08 03:58:14 PM  

DamnYankees: There's a difference between a mass extinction and the extinction of our particular species.


Right. So.
 
2014-05-08 03:59:04 PM  

DamnYankees: dr_blasto: I don't think I quite buy into the whole extinction-level event badness, but certainly not a world we're familiar with will be on the horizon.

I guess my question was that if we're looking at a long time horizon, how is it NOT an extinction event?

If, for example, we agree that in the next 100 years the temperature were to go up 4 degrees Celsius (totally making up numbers, I have no idea), isn't there a hidden presumption in that claim that over 200 years, the temperature would go up 10 degrees? If we're not able to stop us over a 100 year time horizon, what sane person thinks we'll get to the year 2114 and not already be farked? It'll just be a countdown to the end at that point, right?


Human populations would largely die off way sooner than that and therefore CO2 emissions drop off quickly.  The warmer and moister world would quickly re-sequester greenhouse gasses.

Humans and many species would survive.  The downside is that society as we know it would largely end and most off our grand children and future generations would die off in a horrible disease ridden hellscape of people fighting for their lives and fighting for diminishing food and resources.
 
2014-05-08 04:02:32 PM  
"Advisor Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the [Nixon] administration, urged the [Nixon] administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public's attention." Here is the nub: Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned Richard Nixon in 1970 that unless the Nixon administration took drastic action to limit greenhouse gases, it would be seven degrees warmer in the year 2000 and parts of America would be underwater.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by seven degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye, New York.

"Goodbye, Washington, for that matter," by the year 2000. That's 14 years ago. In 1970, Nixon was told we gotta act now or by 30 years from now, in 2000, New York City's gone, Washington's gone, and we're gonna have temperatures seven degrees higher!


The predictions are the same today. And they never come true.
 
2014-05-08 04:04:46 PM  

dr_blasto: The really, really bad stuff is still preventable.


Oh, sure. For example, if you trigger a limited nuclear exchange between the US and China, and you set back industrial civilization hard enough to prevent the full-fledged extinction event.

However, the prevalence of skeptics like Krauthammer make it seem increasingly plausible that the really, really bad stuff may not be preventable within the ordinary scope of politics.

dr_blasto: I don't think I quite buy into the whole extinction-level event badness


Um... from what I've read (EG, via quick poke at Google), climate change is moot on that; the Earth has been undergoing a mass extinction event for some time. Climate change merely implies humans may well be one of the species taken out; perhaps that was what you meant?

DamnYankees: It'll just be a countdown to the end at that point, right?


Well, there's some prospect that industrial civilization will collapse (or otherwise diminish greenhouse gas releases) before we set off the really big feedback loops.
If he passes through, Jon Snow probably can give a more precise answer, though.
 
2014-05-08 04:05:16 PM  

mrshowrules: Human populations would largely die off way sooner than that and therefore CO2 emissions drop off quickly.  The warmer and moister world would quickly re-sequester greenhouse gasses.


I was assuming by that point we'd have kicked off a feedback loop which would continue even in the absence of continued emissions.
 
2014-05-08 04:05:45 PM  

SlothB77: "Advisor Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the [Nixon] administration, urged the [Nixon] administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public's attention." Here is the nub: Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned Richard Nixon in 1970 that unless the Nixon administration took drastic action to limit greenhouse gases, it would be seven degrees warmer in the year 2000 and parts of America would be underwater.

"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by seven degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye, New York.

"Goodbye, Washington, for that matter," by the year 2000. That's 14 years ago. In 1970, Nixon was told we gotta act now or by 30 years from now, in 2000, New York City's gone, Washington's gone, and we're gonna have temperatures seven degrees higher!

The predictions are the same today. And they never come true.


Well, I guess that's what you get when when a politician and sociologist makes long term, specific climate predictions.  If he were alive I'd say we should throw him out the Earth Scientists Club.
 
2014-05-08 04:06:00 PM  

mrshowrules: The warmer and moister world would quickly re-sequester greenhouse gasses.


The amount of CO2 required to raise the temperature +5-6C would take about 300,000 years to reabsorb from the atmosphere.
 
2014-05-08 04:06:23 PM  

abb3w: If he passes through, Jon Snow probably can give a more precise answer, though.


I've been told he knows nothing.
 
2014-05-08 04:07:15 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The amount of CO2 required to raise the temperature +5-6C would take about 300,000 years to reabsorb from the atmosphere.


That is quick on a geological time scale.
 
2014-05-08 04:08:38 PM  

DamnYankees: That is quick on a geological time scale.


Right, but not on a human time-scale. Which is the part that concerns us.
 
2014-05-08 04:10:15 PM  

DamnYankees: Dusk-You-n-Me: Hundreds of millions will die. Hundreds of millions more will be displaced. We're already going to blow past +2C, which is Bad. Anything above +5C is Very Very (insert many Verys) Bad. Amsterdam, New York, and Bangkok are underwater. Most of central Europe is a desert. 40-50% less yields of corn and wheat.The oceans will be 150% more acidic, so all coral life is gone. All the species that rely on coral is gone, and species that rely on those species, etc. Half of all known species on the planet are dead. More frequent and intense storms. Wetter wets, drier drys, hotter hots, colder colds. "Incompatible with an organized global community" as one scientist put it. You get the idea. Above +5C the temperature starts to get too hot to live. Not, "this is uncomfortable, turn on the AC hot", rather "if I spend more than 10 minutes outside I could die" hot. Some of humanity may be able to survive living in caves. But that's surviving, not really living. The word "catastrophic" is being used more and more. Catastrophic may turn out to be an understatement.

I guess the question becomes that when that time comes, who among us will have the opportunity to tap out by choice.


we all have that choice.
 
2014-05-08 04:12:22 PM  

dr_blasto: we all have that choice.


Maybe in the most abstract sense, you can always find *some* way to kill yourself, like bashing your head into a tree or something. But I was thinking of the quiet, gentler methods.
 
2014-05-08 04:18:37 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: The warmer and moister world would quickly re-sequester greenhouse gasses.

The amount of CO2 required to raise the temperature +5-6C would take about 300,000 years to reabsorb from the atmosphere.


A hot, wet planet with less mammals, very few humans would become overgrown with tropical forests and fauna in a few hundred years.  For me, the future of the planet is not in danger.  The future of society and how shiatty my children and their children's life will be is.

The refugee crisis alone will be absolutely horrible and first thing that will likely directly affect my children.
 
2014-05-08 04:24:20 PM  

dr_blasto: We haven't passed any point that bad. The really, really bad stuff is still preventable. Either we cut back on emissions or we fark ourselves over. I don't think I quite buy into the whole extinction-level event badness, but certainly not a world we're familiar with will be on the horizon.


If it requires significant action, it will not happen.  Nothing has changed of note in this country, and although China is forging ahead boldly with nuclear energy they're still running their coal-fired plants full-blast as well as adding massive numbers of vehicles to the streets annually; India as well.  There is no consensus that warming is even HAPPENING, much less anthropogenically influenced, and so the US isn't going to do jack sh*t to reduce emissions significantly and certainly nothing to reverse the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
 
2014-05-08 04:25:06 PM  

DamnYankees: mrshowrules: Human populations would largely die off way sooner than that and therefore CO2 emissions drop off quickly.  The warmer and moister world would quickly re-sequester greenhouse gasses.

I was assuming by that point we'd have kicked off a feedback loop which would continue even in the absence of continued emissions.


The feedback loop, the acceleration is what is going to kill us humans off and cause the crisis.  When the tundra melts in Canada and Russia it will release tremendous amounts of methane gas which is enormously stronger green house gas than CO2.  Plus, the ice caps North and south disappear you have less surfaces reflecting heat from the sun back into space.

It does take off like an uncontrolled reaction, most of us die but then it all peaks and reverses rather quickly because it is an artificial blip.

/not a climatologist and would not be insulted if my layman assumptions are challenged.
 
2014-05-08 04:25:20 PM  
It's a rough comparison at best, but consider the impact that the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa had on global climate.  A single (but admittedly massive) event and single source of particulates and gases in the atmosphere.

"Average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius in the year following the eruption. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888."  [source]

I want to dig deeper to see comparisons between volumes and types of stuff dumped into the atmosphere by humans compared to that event.
 
2014-05-08 04:25:24 PM  

mrshowrules: A hot, wet planet with less mammals, very few humans would become overgrown with tropical forests and fauna in a few hundred years.


I believe these factors are considered in the couple-hundred-thousand-years-to-get-back-to-"normal"-levels estimates. We're simply putting that much carbon in the atmosphere.
 
2014-05-08 04:25:29 PM  
Someday this quantum singularity of negativity is going to collapse in on himself and disappear in a cloud of burnt-rubber scented smoke

/that will be a good day despite the added carbon in the atmosphere
 
2014-05-08 04:27:37 PM  

factoryconnection: There is no consensus that warming is even HAPPENING, much less anthropogenically influenced,


This is only true for one political party in one nation on earth. Pretty much every nation and every scientific body in the world agrees on ACC.
 
2014-05-08 04:36:49 PM  

DamnYankees: dr_blasto: I don't think I quite buy into the whole extinction-level event badness, but certainly not a world we're familiar with will be on the horizon.

I guess my question was that if we're looking at a long time horizon, how is it NOT an extinction event?

If, for example, we agree that in the next 100 years the temperature were to go up 4 degrees Celsius (totally making up numbers, I have no idea), isn't there a hidden presumption in that claim that over 200 years, the temperature would go up 10 degrees? If we're not able to stop us over a 100 year time horizon, what sane person thinks we'll get to the year 2114 and not already be farked? It'll just be a countdown to the end at that point, right?


Extrapolated with same behaviors? Yeah, pretty much guaranteed end for humanity. I don't think that this is likely though. We had a massive hole in the ozone years ago and scientists could see how our own behavior was causing it; we adjusted our behavior. So far, that problem hasn't returned. I'm probably just optimistic when I think that reason will prevail.

In the end, there are too many people. There are too many today and unless things change there will be waaaay too many to feed when the droughts hit. Fertile farmland will become rarer every year. Eventually, those farms near urban centers are going to feel the pressure of competition for really limited aquifers.

None of this is a guaranteed doomsday. It can be changed. Some day we'll prioritize survival of the species over individual wealth generation.

If you look to the positive, we've been adding to the renewable resource, non-carbon energy sources. We've drastically reduced emissions from basic transportation and really cleaned up our petrochemical hydrocarbons for regular folk. There are reasons the doomsday scenarios that have been brought up in the past haven't quite hit.

We have to take more action though. We've already achieved some troubling milestones. Northwest passage? Drought? Unstable weather? All related. Coral bleaching and the death of a lot of reefs. We should take sever economic action on foreign polluters and harsh action on domestic ones.

That's not to say that there's no room for dirty stuff, it is just logical to make the dirty shiat more expensive than clean shiat, thereby adding incentive.
 
2014-05-08 04:38:08 PM  

mrshowrules: Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: The warmer and moister world would quickly re-sequester greenhouse gasses.

The amount of CO2 required to raise the temperature +5-6C would take about 300,000 years to reabsorb from the atmosphere.

A hot, wet planet with less mammals, very few humans would become overgrown with tropical forests and fauna in a few hundred years.  For me, the future of the planet is not in danger.  The future of society and how shiatty my children and their children's life will be is.

The refugee crisis alone will be absolutely horrible and first thing that will likely directly affect my children.


Think hot, dry and acidic. Not hot wet or lush. We're on a path toward Venus, not Hawaii.
 
2014-05-08 04:42:23 PM  

factoryconnection: dr_blasto: We haven't passed any point that bad. The really, really bad stuff is still preventable. Either we cut back on emissions or we fark ourselves over. I don't think I quite buy into the whole extinction-level event badness, but certainly not a world we're familiar with will be on the horizon.

If it requires significant action, it will not happen.  Nothing has changed of note in this country, and although China is forging ahead boldly with nuclear energy they're still running their coal-fired plants full-blast as well as adding massive numbers of vehicles to the streets annually; India as well.  There is no consensus that warming is even HAPPENING, much less anthropogenically influenced, and so the US isn't going to do jack sh*t to reduce emissions significantly and certainly nothing to reverse the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.


There may by no political consensus, but there's scientific consensus and the reality is that the question is best asked as not "are humans responsible" but "how much of this are humans responsible for" and followed up with "how can humans ameliorate the cause or effect"

The fact that wealthy industrialists are capable of farking the conversation up to make a quick buck is unsettling at best. The fact that so many people, without a hint of irony, will spout off stupid shiat like "ooh, it is -20 in the middle of January in Maine, thanks ALGORE" because they've bought into the lies hook, line and sinker.
 
2014-05-08 04:43:38 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: A hot, wet planet with less mammals, very few humans would become overgrown with tropical forests and fauna in a few hundred years.

I believe these factors are considered in the couple-hundred-thousand-years-to-get-back-to-"normal"-levels estimates. We're simply putting that much carbon in the atmosphere.


You might be right.  I'm also making the assumption that plant life is increasing as we die off.  Not one, then the other.  The IPCC predictions indicate that parts of the world will/are actually become much more lush even as humans are being squeezed out of where we live today.

Not just humans dying off, all the cattle and animal agriculture which is a huge piece, will just disappear.  Some scientist say we can reverse ACC now if we basically activated the soil with the right type of plants instead of cattle/farming we practice.  Not sure if that is true but basically, this problem disappears when we do.
 
2014-05-08 04:48:03 PM  

abb3w: Climate change merely implies humans may well be one of the species taken out; perhaps that was what you meant?


Yeah, I'd say that we could be victims, but there's also the possibility that our specialty, adaptation of our environment to our needs, might allow us to survive where most of our contemporary species won't. We do have unique adaptability, and there's something to be said for that. I'm not sure the world would be a pleasant place for us, but it might still be a place.
 
2014-05-08 04:50:24 PM  

dr_blasto: mrshowrules: Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: The warmer and moister world would quickly re-sequester greenhouse gasses.

The amount of CO2 required to raise the temperature +5-6C would take about 300,000 years to reabsorb from the atmosphere.

A hot, wet planet with less mammals, very few humans would become overgrown with tropical forests and fauna in a few hundred years.  For me, the future of the planet is not in danger.  The future of society and how shiatty my children and their children's life will be is.

The refugee crisis alone will be absolutely horrible and first thing that will likely directly affect my children.

Think hot, dry and acidic. Not hot wet or lush. We're on a path toward Venus, not Hawaii.


Droughts and acidity for sure in the short term.  However, I don't see how a planet with such huge oceans can become dryer as it become hotter.
 
2014-05-08 04:51:57 PM  

dr_blasto: abb3w: Climate change merely implies humans may well be one of the species taken out; perhaps that was what you meant?

Yeah, I'd say that we could be victims, but there's also the possibility that our specialty, adaptation of our environment to our needs, might allow us to survive where most of our contemporary species won't. We do have unique adaptability, and there's something to be said for that. I'm not sure the world would be a pleasant place for us, but it might still be a place.


The species most closely tied to their ecosystems won't do well.  We will lose so many species but I have no doubt humans would survive.
 
2014-05-08 04:58:32 PM  
i58.tinypic.com
 
2014-05-08 04:59:39 PM  

mrshowrules: dr_blasto: mrshowrules: Dusk-You-n-Me: mrshowrules: The warmer and moister world would quickly re-sequester greenhouse gasses.

The amount of CO2 required to raise the temperature +5-6C would take about 300,000 years to reabsorb from the atmosphere.

A hot, wet planet with less mammals, very few humans would become overgrown with tropical forests and fauna in a few hundred years.  For me, the future of the planet is not in danger.  The future of society and how shiatty my children and their children's life will be is.

The refugee crisis alone will be absolutely horrible and first thing that will likely directly affect my children.

Think hot, dry and acidic. Not hot wet or lush. We're on a path toward Venus, not Hawaii.

Droughts and acidity for sure in the short term.  However, I don't see how a planet with such huge oceans can become dryer as it become hotter.


That acidity would be detrimental to any life on land. dirt becomes dust becomes sand. The oceans really do a lot of work maintaining temperatures and acting as a sort of heat pump, but that pumping and circulation changes as the temperatures rise above level regulatable and as reefs die off, currents change.
 
2014-05-08 05:03:17 PM  
LOL, Charlie will be getting a call from Roger soon. XD
 
2014-05-08 05:03:56 PM  
fark him and his nick kroll looking face
 
Displayed 50 of 319 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report