SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's the final call, say scientists, the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.
Their dramatic report on keeping that rise under 1.5 degrees C says the world is now completely off track, heading instead towards 3C.
Keeping to the preferred target of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels will mean "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society".
[...] After three years of research and a week of haggling between scientists and government officials at a meeting in South Korea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C.
The critical 33-page Summary for Policymakers certainly bears the hallmarks of difficult negotiations between climate researchers determined to stick to what their studies have shown and political representatives more concerned with economies and living standards.
Despite the inevitable compromises, there are some key messages that come through loud and clear.
"The first is that limiting warming to 1.5C brings a lot of benefits compared with limiting it to two degrees. It really reduces the impacts of climate change in very important ways," said Prof Jim Skea, who co-chairs the IPCC.
"The second is the unprecedented nature of the changes that are required if we are to limit warming to 1.5C - changes to energy systems, changes to the way we manage land, changes to the way we move around with transportation."
"Scientists might want to write in capital letters, 'ACT NOW, IDIOTS,' but they need to say that with facts and numbers," said Kaisa Kosonen, of Greenpeace, who was an observer at the negotiations. "And they have."
The researchers have used these facts and numbers to paint a picture of the world with a dangerous fever, caused by humans. We used to think if we could keep warming below two degrees this century, then the changes we would experience would be manageable.
Not any more. This new study says that going past 1.5C is dicing with the planet's liveability. And the 1.5C temperature "guard rail" could be exceeded in just 12 years, in 2030.
We can stay below it - but it will require urgent, large-scale changes from governments and individuals and we will have to invest a massive pile of cash every year, about 2.5% of global gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced, for two decades.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by black6host on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:33PM (28 children)
Pay now or pay later but we're going to pay. The problem with paying later is that there always seems to be interest tacked on. Probably very high interest in this case. Unfortunately money rules and short term planning has become the norm for many. As long as we make a buck today we'll worry about tomorrow when
it comesit's too late.(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:48PM (6 children)
It's better to burn through those fossil fuels now, because not only does that raise people out of poverty, but it literally gives us the energy to pursue better energy technologies and conservation/reclamation methods.
Also, science isn't a democracy. Consensus has nothing to do with science, especially when going against that consensus can ruin your career and even your social life. One side of the debate gets more money and power; the other side of the debate gets maligned as cooky "Climate Deniers" who should lose all they've achieved in life... hmmm... I wonder which side to trust...
(Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:51PM (5 children)
I wonder why this is always the case when people complain about global warming and are anti-vaccine but not against other sciences.
Why aren't they anti-gravity, anti-momentum, anti-special relativity, etc. It's not like we have perfect understanding and consensus on anything in science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:45AM (1 child)
Because there aren't people making money hand over fist off of anti-gravity, anti-momentum, etc.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:05AM
All the money and control over people's lives is decidedly on the side of those who support "climate change".
Governments want to tell you how to live, what kind of light bulbs to by, how your car should run, and to gain control of entirely new energy sectors. That's why they cannot abide "deniers".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:50AM (1 child)
Here's a presentation [youtube.com] and associated paper [vixra.org].
It's just that there's no power or money to be gotten from supporting special relativity; ergo, nobody gives a shit that some "cranks" are disputing it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:09AM
Apparently, that link to the paper is incorrect; it's some abridged version or something.
This looks more like the right one [sciencepublishinggroup.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:58AM
Proponents of global warming and vaccination want to force themselves into peoples lives. Not so much regarding gravity, although I bet you'll find very few global warming or vaccine skeptics who also find dark matter acceptable once its explained to them. But even so, there isnt much reason to care about it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:28PM (7 children)
It's better to burn through those fossil fuels now, because not only does that raise people out of poverty, but it literally gives us the energy to pursue better energy technologies and conservation/reclamation methods.
Also, science isn't a democracy. Consensus has nothing to do with science, especially when going against that consensus can ruin your career and even your social life. One side of the debate gets more money and power; the other side of the debate gets maligned as cooky "Climate Deniers" who should lose all they've achieved in life... hmmm... I wonder which side to trust...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:33PM (6 children)
We already have the technologies. You advocate burning through all the oil, gas, and coal? You shouldn't even be allowed to use the word "science".
Go circle jerk with the other consensus-loving sheeple who think they are oh-so-insightful but are really oh-so-brainwashed.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:39PM (4 children)
If you've got a viable alternative, then what are you waiting for??? Go deploy it! If it's viable, then it'll work—that's what "viable" means.
Subsidizing an alternative doesn't count, because it hides the true costs (and, yes, I realize that fossil fuels are subsidized, too). The only way we can get a solution is to stop the subsidies, and let the free market do its work—let individuals make their own damn choices about which solution is worth their resources.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:50PM (2 children)
That is beyond stupid as usual vim guy. The market will decide that all the infrastructure is too costly to replace or remove so the ststus quo will co tinue as that macimizes profits while minimizing costs. Future consequences are not even considered. History shows that i am right and you are a deluded anarcho-capitalist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:04PM (1 child)
If you've got a problem with the way infrastructure is managed, then you've got a problem with government—you know, the organization that pretends to manage lots of infrastructure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:59PM
You seem like a crappy chatbot now.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday October 10 2018, @10:04PM
So does continually ignoring the external costs of continuing to maintain or worse, expand fossil fuel use.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:51PM
If you've got a viable alternative, then what are you waiting for??? Go deploy it! If it's viable, then it'll work—that's what "viable" means.
Subsidizing an alternative doesn't count, because it hides the true costs (and, yes, I realize that fossil fuels are subsidized, too). The only way we can get a solution is to stop the subsidies, and let the free market do its work—let individuals make their own damn choices about which solution is worth their resources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:52PM
Meh. My guess is that the nukes will fly in the next 10-20 years. On the bright side, if there's a nuclear winter (another "controversy" that's controversial only for certain people who really really really want the USA to blow its nuclear wad and don't give a shit what the consequences are so want to convince us that there will be no consequences when N-day happens, just like any consequences for pumping sequestered carbon from an era way before humans evolved out of the ground and burning it are just a controversy and science is not a democracy!!eleven!1! and can't we kill all men already so angelic women can implement anarcho-capitalism and save the Earth Mother from the evil not-angelic men?) *breathes*.... it might correct AGW.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by looorg on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:36PM (8 children)
Might not the issue be that they have been preaching the same doom and gloom scenarios now for about four or five decades. It's bordering (or already crossed over into) becoming a cry wolf scenario (even tho it might not be false) and normal people (or the "idiots") have pretty much stopped paying attention to this a long time ago and they can call out the issue however many times they like and that just won't change. One might even say that if you have not managed to convince someone in four or five decades then well the issue might be with you and the way you are going about it and not only being an audience or receiver issue. Not to mention that they do seem to be a bit light on actual real world solutions, it's a bit sketchy or lacking in substance. Just telling us that we have to lower the temperature (somehow via one of the more or less vague suggestions) is not really a solution. Are they even offering any actual solutions or is that up to the idiots to figure that one out to? It's not that I don't believe that global warming is (or might be) real but the way they are going about it seems all wrong and pointless.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:55PM (2 children)
Yes, it is up to the idiots to figure out. A climate scientist is no more qualified to dictate economic policy than an economist is qualified to pass judgement on a climate science. Nor are they in a position TO dictate policy because they arn't privy to all the possible variables that a politician gets bombarded with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:56PM
According to the nutjobs round here they are already being bombarded with all the variables politicians deal with, AKA money!
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:12PM
The climate scientists aren't qualified to dictate economic or public policy. They'll just tell you to get ready to multiply most of your spreadsheet's variables by (current_temperature +3C)/current_temperature.
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:24PM (1 child)
No. It's largely because extremely wealthy interests have an interest in propagandising against the climate science and have been very successful. They have also used their money to dictate US energy policies.
This piece lays it out pretty clearly. [newyorker.com] When your big political donors tell you what your policy is going to be, you'd better listen.
This is not new, George Bush II had his energy policy written for him by the oil companies who helped get him elected, and did not even deny it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:02AM
Withdrawing from the Paris agreement was a Trump campaign promise. He is not aligned with the Kochs. And don't pretend this was so unpopular. It was a big part of Trump's platform, and he got elected.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:30AM (2 children)
You can't say it's crying wolf when many of the predicted outcomes are already occurring. Ask the inuits how they like their permafrost melting. Ask the people of Venice how they like their ocean levels rising. Ask everyone on a coast how they like more frequent and severe hurricanes. You only don't see it because it isn't affecting you right now.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:36AM
And the children of the UK will never see snow again, and we’ll have six super storm Sandy’s every year!!!!1!!1
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ilPapa on Wednesday October 10 2018, @06:21AM
Hurricane Michael, which is now hitting the Gulf Coast, is God's wrath on red states for electing Trump and supporting a rapist judge going onto the Supreme Court.
Prove me wrong.
https://goo.gl/images/k1Z92a [goo.gl]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:49PM (2 children)
It's better to burn through those fossil fuels now, because not only does that raise people out of poverty, but it literally gives us the energy to pursue better energy technologies and conservation/reclamation methods.
Also, science isn't a democracy. Consensus has nothing to do with science, especially when going against that consensus can ruin your career and even your social life. One side of the debate gets more money and power; the other side of the debate gets maligned as cooky "Climate Deniers" who should lose all they've achieved in life... hmmm... I wonder which side to trust...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @11:27AM (1 child)
Spamming the forum only harms your credibility. If you have something to say let it stand or fall according to its merits. If you don't then shut the fuck up.
I guess netiquette is different in soviet russia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:06PM
Get it yet?