We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees. 341
Lasrick writes Dawn Stover writes in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that climate change is irreversible but not unstoppable. She describes the changes that are happening already and also those likely to happen, and compares what is coming to the climate of the Pliocene: 'Even if countries reduce emissions enough to keep temperatures from rising much above the internationally agreed-upon "danger" threshold of 2 degrees Celsius (which seems increasingly unlikely), we can still look forward to conditions similar to those of the mid-Pliocene epoch of 3 million years ago. At that time, the continents were in much the same positions that they are today, carbon dioxide levels ranged between 350 and 400 ppm, the global average temperature was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius higher than it is today (but up to 20 degrees higher than today at the northernmost latitudes), the global sea level was about 25 meters higher, and most of today's North American forests were grasslands and savanna.' Stover agrees with two scientists published in Nature Geoscience that 'Future warming is therefore driven by socio-economic inertia," and points the way toward changing a Pliocene future.
Poor choice of example (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering there have been over 2000 nuclear tests
Re:Poor choice of example (Score:4, Insightful)
Even more so when you think no one else had a good reason to use nukes againist an enemy. Even today the estimates for bringing an end to world war two wa hundreds of thousands of lives, and another 1-2 years of fighting. Unlike Germany fire bombing Japanese cities wasn't having the desired effect.
No wars since then have been that desperate for those with nukes. Which is the only reason why north Korea is troubling. North Korea or Iran will feel desperate enough to use them.
Re:Poor choice of example (Score:5, Funny)
Germany never fire bombed Japanese cities, mostly due to commas.
Re: (Score:3)
Japan didn't want to enter a war with the US.
Sorry, but this re-writing of history won't work here.
Japan very much wanted to go to war with the United States. Almost the sole standout was Admiral Yamamoto. His quote about awakening a "sleeping giant" has never been substantiated, but it matters very little because nobody listened to him.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Considering there have been over 2000 nuclear tests
We stopped at 2000 nuclear tests, we can stop at a 2000 degree Celsius increase in temperature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Successful at identifying it as rhetorical fluff.
ok, so it's not unstoppable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
May be we can't. But we surely can make it worse. And the appropriate piece of wisdom in such situation is: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!
Re: (Score:3)
Global warming is a great thing - just ask Canada, especially the places that are currently -40 degrees.
Scientists need someone that knows marketing. We don't care about what they talk about... link the argument to our pay or something useful.
Final thought... comparisons are to rebuilding today's infrastructure as if it wasn't constantly changing already. We have decades and perhaps centuries to adjust - ever hear of constant improvement?
Re: (Score:3)
Global warming is a great thing - just ask Canada, especially the places that are currently -40 degrees.
The History channel will be happy to learn that they can start planning a few years of Mud Road Truckers, after the permafrost melts.
Re: (Score:3)
Global warming is a great thing - just ask Canada, especially the places that are currently -40 degrees.
As opposed to those near freezing - at the Arctic Circle? There is a reason why "Global" is capitalized. Here's a nice world map how temperatures where compared to the average for Jan. 2015: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/ [noaa.gov]
Final thought... comparisons are to rebuilding today's infrastructure as if it wasn't constantly changing already. We have decades and perhaps centuries to adjust - ever hear of constant improvement?
We are decades behind fixing our infrastructure already - do you really want to drag that out even longer?
Re:ok, so it's not unstoppable (Score:4, Informative)
Global warming is a great thing - just ask Canada, especially the places that are currently -40 degrees.
Right, because when their average temperature suddenly jumps up to 25C, those northern frozen wastelands will instantly become a tropical paradise/breadbasket of the earth. Nevermind that since nothing has grown taller than a foot in 100s (1000s?) of thousands of years there are no nutrients in the soil and its much more likely to turn into a desert (much like rainforests do after deforestation). The effort to turn our newly thawed tundra into the fertile paradise all you "AGW aint so bad" crowd like to spout all the time could well be greater than eliminating all CO2 emissions within 5 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Never minding that even the Tundra biomes were once part of Pangaea, a continent which was completely covered in all manner of life. The soil nutrients don't magically disappear when the area freezes over.
Re: (Score:3)
Marketing wont help. when 90% of the population are functional morons when it comes to science you cant say anything to convince people that just can not understand why warmer planet means more dramatic cold during the winter.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that we're digging and Africa gets to sit in the hole.
But We Didn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But We Didn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, sounds exactly like the way we're "dealing" with global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, using nuclear bombs as an example of restraint isn't very enlightened. We made bombs for one purpose, and when that purpose went away we instantly found another use for them as soon as we had the first bombs ready, and then proceeded by furiously making as many of them as possible. The main reason we haven't blown up the planet a few times is luck.
Re:But We Didn't (Score:4, Interesting)
No. The reason we have not blown up the rest of the world has nothing to do with luck. There has been a very concerted effort to keep them on a leash. If you think that its all luck, remove all the controls we have added over the years against proliferation and watch how quickly a very large western city becomes an irradiated wasteland due to some extremist with too much money and too little sense.
If World War III is going to happen, it is not because someone got unlucky, but because someone created a plan to use those weapons for some purpose. That won't be luck, that will be pure stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
No. We've been lucky. And yes, there have been successful attempts to get them better under control. The first 20 years were pretty reckless and afterwards there also have been unintended close calls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Let it happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you've read much Taleb. Your "benchmark" sounds like something freshly checked out from the LTCM [wikipedia.org] Lemma Loans Library.
In a sufficiently complex system (Rule 110 [wikipedia.org]), means are not guaranteed to exist (Cauchy--Lorentz distribution [wikipedia.org]).
Jay Rosen on Edge.org [edge.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Punishing people for having the wrong opinions seems all too common in this debate, but if you want sensible argument then throw so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just use the satellite data, which can't be fiddled with.
There is far more "fiddling" done just to produce the satellite temperature data than there is to produce the surface temperature data. In the first place satellites don't measure temperature directly. Instead they measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules which serve as a proxy for temperatures in blobs of the atmosphere above the surface. They have to be adjusted for things like orbital decay, estimated sensor drift, changes in the time of observation and to account for things like clouds and
Climate change phobia (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, what are people so concerned about? Climate's gonna change, people gonna die or relocate, society will have to adapt, animals will die out... But nature will adapt qnd so will we. It's gonna suck a lot but it's not gonna be a tangible end to anything.
Re:Climate change phobia (Score:4, Interesting)
Only question is the speed.
If you change something over 10000years, ok people will move and adapt.
If you change the same thing over 100 or 200 years, you may have a period of an increased numer of wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but then GP would just say:
Frankly, what are people so concerned about? War's gonna happen, people gonna die or relocate, society will have to adapt, socioeconomic structures will adapt and so will we. It's gonna suck a lot but it's not gonna be a tangible end to anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not worried if humanity survives, but if you look into history, provoking wars was never a good idea.
What happens if, e.g. China falls apart in an uncontrolled fashion, or Russia, or India? Or even the US? limate change is a economic risk on a global scale.
I hope that this does not happen withing my lifetime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, what are people so concerned about?
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the sam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Climate change phobia (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no expert on the matter either. But I can imagine that a sea level rise of a few meters (at the turn of the century) will results in tremendous economic damage (relocation of hundreds of million of people *and* real estate, as most of the population on Earth is housed in large cities in coastal regions), famine (due to loss of agricultural land), and territorial conflicts.
In any case, I think we have now arrived at the point where anyone that has children born after 2010 finds oneself in the situation where ones children, and grandchildren are going to be seriously affected by climate change and overpopulation. Those have to ask themselves what they are going to tell their grandchildren, 50 years from now, about how they had the ability to make a difference but couldn't agree on how bad it was going to be and therefore decided inaction was the best course of action.
Anyways what's the worst that can happen? [youtube.com] and what is the real cost of climate change? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But I can imagine that a sea level rise of a few meters (at the turn of the century) will results in tremendous economic damage
Just think about all the fun stuff that will get lifted out of the soil and carried into the oceans when that happens!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm no expert on the matter either. But I can imagine that a sea level rise of a few meters (at the turn of the century) will results in tremendous economic damage (relocation of hundreds of million of people *and* real estate, as most of the population on Earth is housed in large cities in coastal regions)
I live in a city in a "coastal region" and what's generally recognized as the city center is 10m above sea level with most areas trending upwards, 2 meters would affect <5% of the city. So there's coastal cities and there's "flat as a pancake cities that are 1 meter above sea level", you can take a look for yourself here [geology.com]. Note that the links in the top bar is showing you pretty much the worst case locations, zoom out and you can see the whole world. Take for example New York at 2m, the bulk of the city i
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's New Orleans. Average height above Sea Level is MINUS 0.5 meters. Range is 6m above to 2m below.
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's the Netherlands, with 27% of the country below sea level, including some major cities and industrial areas.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sea levels rise about 2-3mm per year [wikipedia.org] when you're not using your imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
But I can imagine that a sea level rise of a few meters (at the turn of the century) will results in tremendous economic damage (relocation of hundreds of million of people *and* real estate, as most of the population on Earth is housed in large cities in coastal regions), famine (due to loss of agricultural land), and territorial conflicts.
And I can imagine that it won't. After all, those hundreds of millions of people are going to move and rebuild infrastructure several times each over that period of time. Some of those moves will just be uphill.
In any case, I think we have now arrived at the point where anyone that has children born after 2010 finds oneself in the situation where ones children, and grandchildren are going to be seriously affected by climate change and overpopulation.
Overpopulation has been a factor probably since the dawn of humanity. It's not that hard to reproduce to the point where you've reached the carrying capacity of the local environment.
Similarly, we've probably been affected by climate change over that same interval. It's just now that part of that
Re: (Score:2)
are going to be seriously affected by climate change and overpopulation.
Define overpopulation. If you mean an actual insufficiency of key physical resources (i.e. food)...then we're nowhere close to the Earth's limit, and we wont be when population stabilizes around 10 billion mid-century, either. It doesn't count if there's not enough food only because some people wont stop eating meat or turning food into fuel.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not going to be too bad. Think about it. We all have handheld computers that are continuously connected to essentially all the world's information. We have the ability to shape our world as never before in history. People move across and between continents routinely. The advantages of modern life make otherwise catastrophic problems into mere inconveniences.
And that's now. This article wants you to worry about hundreds of years in the future. We can expect technological progress to continue to i
Re: (Score:2)
This article wants you to worry about hundreds of years in the future. We can expect technological progress to continue to improve things for us
I expect us to be dead, then.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the other 7b
What do you mean "what about" them? If you have a point, what's your point? If you have a question, articulate it.
Your idea that most of the world's population leads backward, benighted lives is about 20 years out of date. Prosperity is widespread.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you want this?
Why would you choose the 'it's goona suck' option?
The 'it's gonna suck' option is clearly tangible.
The 'It's gonna suck + people gonna die' Is something to be concerned about.
Your post doesn't make any sense and is full of straight forwards contradictions.
Re: Climate change phobia (Score:4, Interesting)
Read E. C. Pielou, specifically After the Ice Age. It's a nice description of what happened last time we had climate change.
As of 1990, we were still not as warm as we were 10,000 years ago. The Milankovitch cycle still continues, and the next ice age approaches.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'm just at the point where I realize that fretting over shit I cannot change because more powerful people don't want to let it happen and my 'peers' will not get off their asses is useless.
I will do my darndest to insure my family survives and fuck the rest of you all. But I'm not gonna let you people ruin the relatuvely good days also because you think I need to be scared of your pet peeve.
Slonshal! (Score:2)
It's about time I got my metapsychic powers and ramapithecus servants.
It's funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Really. I can't help but laugh every time there's a climate change bickering here on /.
It's absolutely stunningly awesome. You have two sides, zealous in their quest to convince everyone and their dog that they're right. Both sides have various "studies", produced more likely than not in a dark, rather warm but also quite smelly place and pulled out of there with little ceremony. Both sides accusing the other side of shilling, resorting to name calling and whatnot.
And neither side has any idea what to DO if they're right.
That's the actual joke here. Let's say, just for argument's sake, that there is global warming and that the whole sky-is-falling scenario will happen (which, I will freely admit, I think actually will happen). What now? Does anyone where really think there will be anything REMOTELY close to global consent on laws to lower the impact? Seriously? Fuck, we can't even get international consensus on stuff that presents an immediate and direct danger rather than a maybe-kinda-could-be-sorta danger in half a century. Even if we DID know for a fact, no doubt about it, 100% sure, proven FACT, that in 50 years life on earth as we know it would be impossible, you would NOT get any kind of international law going. No chance, no way.
But hey, keep talking. If nothing else, it's entertaining.
Re:It's funny (Score:4, Interesting)
And neither side has any idea what to DO if they're right.
No, we know what needs to be done, we don't know how to force people to do it. And it very much takes force. The people whining about it seem to forget that this is how the world works. People with different ideas eventually come to blows because in the real world you can't do both things.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is where the whole deal breaks down, because there will never be such a thing. Nobody will be forced.
The only ones that could enforce something like this are the politicians, leaders of states that can create laws. Such laws will not come into existence, though, since that would require a global consensus because one country doing such a move alone will invariably cripple its economy. Global treaties that are supposed to be more than a stack of paper with letters, i.e. treaties that will be enforce
Re: (Score:2)
It must be lovely to be so cool and detached about such things. Do wars and pandemics and poverty also induce belly laughs in you?
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:2)
I'm generally detached about things I'm powerless to influence. I'm usually the only calm person in a plane flying through a hurricane. Is there anything I can do? No. Why bother getting worked up about it?
Believe me, if I had to fly that plane, I'd be nervous as hell, but in the passenger seat... lean back and enjoy the roller coaster ride.
Re: (Score:2)
But you're not powerless to influence the subject of this debate, you're just throwing in the towel for no good reason it seems to me, and are therefore actively avoiding getting the best outcome, which is negligent.
Do you bother to vote?
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:2)
Do you bother to vote?
I don't. The possible difference caused by a single vote does not outweigh the trouble of participating.
Re: (Score:2)
But sure, I love elections! Great shows with lots and lots of entertainment value. Only thing that bugs me about them is that I'm asked to choose without having a choice.
Re:It's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA had only 38% certanity that 2014 was hotter by 0.024 degrees. How can they be only 38% sure?
Never heard of measurement error bars ? Other years have them too. If you sort all the years by probability they were the hottest, then 2014 remains at the top.
Then I read another story about people researching past records that have been horribly manipulated
And you liked that story so much that you decided to believe it ?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember all the predictions about how rare snow would be and how clidren born after 2000 would grow up in a world where they never got to see snow?
No, no I don't.
I do remember hearing about CO2 forcing in elementary school, though.
Re: (Score:2)
How can they be only 38% sure?
More evidence for Dunning-Kruger.
Re: (Score:2)
In 50 years, NONE of the current heads of state will still be alive, let alone in power. Yes, they will pay lip service to the problem. No, they won't do jack shit about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that all depends on whether they are right and whether your property is close to a coast line.
Dear Earth: status quo forever ... no change (Score:2)
thanks.
A lesson from the future (Score:2)
Leela: Actually, it did. But thank God nuclear winter canceled it out.
Idiotic comparison (Score:2)
Not only (as others have pointed out) did we not stop at two, but setting off nuclear bombs is just a thing you can decide not to do. We may well be past the point of climate runaway, and if that's so then we would have to engage in concerted effort to prevent the imminent demise of the relative condition of biostasis we've enjoyed all the time.
Or hell, maybe the next ice age cycle will solve the problem, through some as-yet-unimagined mechanism. The question then becomes whether we'll survive that.
Government reaction: (Score:2)
zero chance of stopping. (Score:2)
As long as everybody points elsewhere and screams about per capita while ignoring the bulk of CO2, we have no chance.
What's the rush (Score:2)
I just don't get the big rush. I understand that green house gases are rising temperatures. I understand the possible impacts of rising water levels, more chaotic weather, changing farm lands...
But lets be clear. This polluting has been going on for the industrial revolution. Over two hundred years.
We're already getting fairly competitive hybrid and electric cars. Most car companies have decent models. Revolutionary firms like Tesla are there. Who knows what Google and Apple will do.
We already have a fair a
Re:Who did the study? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have your grimy, bridge-girder-mangled finger on the reason why climate activists are doomed, I say, doomed.
When scientists render their final verdict on the carbon warming hypothesis, it will be one of these alternatives:
1. Manmade warming is somewhere in the range of nonexistent to exaggerated. Activists' heads explode.
2. Manmade warning is some value of significant to apocalyptic. If we need to immediately stop emitting carbon, we will have to nuclear. If there is already too much carbon in the atmosphere, we will have to geoengineer. The activists' heads explode.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Where do you find that reference in this article? It references a number of studies from different sources, which one is "the nuclear power industry"?
And... where did the click-bait headline "we stopped at two bombs" come from!? Who's "we", and W(here)TF was it "stopped" at two bombs. Certainly not Alaska, Muaroa... Japan?
I'm guessing it's a missprint. Should of been "we (cant' handle our drugs/inner realities) stopped at two bongs . Which is where they stopped reading. What were they smoking? Not the kind herb.
Should of stopped about two metres from the keyboard. And had twenty bongs of the kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Your semi-literacy must be an embarrassment to you.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's pretty amusing to the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Should of been "we stopped at two bongs . Which is where they stopped reading. What were they smoking? Not the kind herb.
I'm guessing that is was Two Atomic Bongs
Re: (Score:3)
No need for lithium batteries of that size. Just settle down politics (that's fantasy part of the plan, I know) and build power line across continents, crossing that tiny Bering StraiÐ and connecting all solar plants around the world. Then shuffle electricity around the globe as needed. It's quite doable today, with today tech and moderate expenses.
Re: (Score:3)
No need for lithium batteries of that size. Just settle down politics (that's fantasy part of the plan, I know) and build power line across continents, crossing that tiny Bering Strait and connecting all solar plants around the world. Then shuffle electricity around the globe as needed. It's quite doable today, with today tech and moderate expenses.
I like the way you think... it's a beautiful dream and I'm right there with you, except for the 'doable' part. See this great Megastructures documentary, Bridging The Bering Strait [youtube.com]. So many great things to accomplish. If more than ~19.6% of engineers receiving a Bachelors in engineering were women I think we would be much better off. (Not what you said, just thinking that because my daughter is choosing a major.)
There is such an expanse between things that are good ideas and those that are practical --- tha
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'm sure they can afford you, your nuclear shilling and your sockpuppets to mod you up. C'mon slashdot this is so fucking obvious. As for the other guy you were responding to, that's probably you too.
In fact... I'M SOOO CLEVER I even wrote your comment too! Bwaa-haa-haaa!
you bable A-lot!
Thank you. Feel free to sample our other fine products [slashdot.org].
Re:Who did the study? (Score:4, Interesting)
Literally every nuclear plant in construction throughout the entire world is way overbudget, even the ones in China.
You're right... but China aims to change that. China is cool with the delays in AP1000 construction... why? Because Westinghouse is refining the pump design.
China is much more than a happy customer experiencing some delays in delivery and construction. They have a plan in place to build the CAP1400 [snptc.com.cn], their own proprietary version of the Westinghouse AP1000.
If you're a flag-waving American who believes that we're still in the race to help develop and industrialize the world, this August 2014 slide show from China's SNPTC (State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation) [pbnc2014.org] is worth a look. "China has basically established the 3rd generation nuclear power industrial system, built up the complete equipment supplied chain, completed the standard design of localized AP1000, and prepared for mass construction of the localized AP1000."
And that is merely to ensure its entry into the market as a supplier of AP1000 [wikipedia.org]-compatible reactors in the short term. Their CAP1400 project promises to build on the AP1000 concept while scaling up the output by half (to 1530MWe). They are also suggesting an actual four-year construction cycle.
So if Westinghouse (majority owner: Toshiba) wishes to delay construction today in order to improve the design of coolant pumps --- I'm sure China is amenable. They will note the improvements and incorporate them.
While the United States feeds Africa for a day and attempts to impose unworkable energy solutions [slashdot.org], Japan and China will build its coal plants today [institutef...search.org] and become its infrastructure partners. Then with the same steadfast determination with which the USA built out railroads, the Chinese will lay high speed rail, energize itself and New Africa with grids and mature PWR nuclear energy tomorrow. And on the third day, Thorium reactors using liquid fuel. Ultimately a quadrillion dollars of infrastructure [nextbigfuture.com]... financed and built without the US dollar, perhaps.
So if China supplies nuclear reactors to the world --- and ultimately also the United States for a hefty price, when natural gas declines and we shake ourselves awake from this renewables nightmare, what a pity. We could have done it first and we could have done it better.
___
"Oh dear! We're late!" Down the nuclear rabbit hole we go [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's never been more easy to shill than today.
In the old days, publishing was something reserved for those that had anything to say, well, at least for the most part. Publishers didn't just print any kind of crap for it easily tarnishes your reputation if you do. And soon people who not have some reputation and hence reach high volumes because other people want to read what they have to say (read: those that you WANT to publish) don't want to publish their serious and scientifically sound facts with yo
Re: (Score:3)
"when a record is tied for sixteen years that sorta mean it's NOT GOING UP."
The implication "If A then B" can be true when both A and B are false.
The record has not been tied for 16 years: it has not been exceed for 16 years, which only tells you that records are set by outliers, not trends.
Re: (Score:2)
And much of the now-occupied hinterlands of Europe and the USA were underwater... not so bad. Flag as Inappropriate
Butttt... the water was nice and warm. Of course it was relatively non-toxic then - won't be next time.
In Eurasia rodents did well, while primate distribution declined [wikipedia.org]. But wait... there's more! Fucking big lava lamps (it was cool kids. You call them volcanoes now).
Re: Extinction event (Score:2)
I don't think we'll go extinct but our civilization might collapse which would be a terrible waste.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look around yourself. I don't know about you, but I can't say that losing this failed system we call civilization sounds more like a chance for a reboot than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Look around yourself! This failed system has harnessed quantum mechanics to preserve your apathy in a massive disaster proof building somewhere on the micron scale yet makes it available for most of society to see in an instant! We've come so far and may well be on the verge of taking the next great leap in understanding the universe (or finding out if the universe even allows that leap to be taken) and you just want to throw it all away because there are a bunch of jerks mixed in.
Nice nickname btw. There i
Re: (Score:2)
because on average it causes bigger areas to live for larger amounts of species - ice age doing the opposite.
besides than that.. the mass extinction events don't seem to have occurred on high temperature averages?
doom and gloom, doom and gloom. and not going to affect anything unless you can stop china from using coal as far as emissions go.
it's just a feelie piece of writing, indicated by the "two atomic bombs" shit line. exploding of bombs happend for a long time after that, even bombs far, far bigger tha
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be so sure... http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... [sciencemag.org]
http://www.pnas.org/content/99... [pnas.org]
http://journals.plos.org/plosb... [plos.org]
http://rspb.royalsocietypublis... [royalsocie...ishing.org]
http://www.esajournals.org/doi... [esajournals.org]
http://www.pnas.org/content/10... [pnas.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hush! I have real estate at 1000+m above sea level, once the coasts are flooded I get to cash in!
Re:Actually, we've already stopped... (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the data you will find we have been flat for the last 20 years
Bullshit. The temperatures have not deviated from the same trend established in the decades before that.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2... [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Convenient for him that his graph started in 1970, but that's a subtle form of dishonesty since it's been warming since at least 1890.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... [woodfortrees.org]
Re: (Score:3)
lol @ wordpress link.
Lol @ attacking the messenger. Here's the source:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... [nasa.gov]
That wasn't so hard. The graphs even say "NASA".
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly is the relevance of CO2 concentration of exhaled breath ?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It means the concentration of CO2 in everybody's lungs is at least 40,000 ppm. So people blaming their "ailments" on 600ppm is complete BS.
Re: (Score:2)
It means the concentration of CO2 in everybody's lungs is at least 40,000 ppm. So people blaming their "ailments" on 600ppm is complete BS
Global warming is not an ailment. It is also not affected by CO2 in your lungs. Please tell me you're not really that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? We just saw a U.S. Senator, the Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, throw a snowball on the Senate floor, proving conclusively that global warming doesn't exist. Also, the Earth is only 6000 years old. You need to get your unscientific facts straight!