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: -1, Redundant) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:44PM (52 children)
Our funding is running out, let's see if we can get some panic back in the headlines /sarc
Seriously, climate science is in such a pathetic state that it's impossible to take it seriously. Lost date, secret algorithms. Poorly positioned stations, unexplainable corrections. With all the hype, the number of climate monitoring stations continues to decrease, especially in critical areas like the arctic.
Most recently, a PhD student did a formal audit of Hadcrut, the most-used data set, and found it riddled with errors. [wattsupwiththat.com] Based on this, we are supposed to spend untold trillions?
If climate scientists really want to be taken seriously, they need to stop with the tabloid articles, and start doing some serious science.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:52PM (22 children)
So if climate change results in mass starvation or displacement you'll be the first to offer your home and provisions right? I mean really, we want to hold our politicians accountable but how about the hordes of idiots that promote such politicians? That give the stupidity legitimacy through the often maligned "group think". The irony on the group think or consensus bit would be funny if the situation wasn't so fucked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:56PM (20 children)
Yea, if the climate ever changes in a way that makes things worse for someone itll be bradley13's fault...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:10PM (18 children)
Yes it will be. At least he'll share the blame with millions of other morons, but yes. Why have we had so little action? Because a good portion of the population bought the propaganda from the oil companies, and even now after those same companies admitted to lying about climate change we STILL have bradley_mindofa13yearold holding the dogmatic line.
All I'm asking for is that he put his money where his mouth is. If he isn't willing to take that chance then why not promote a more sustainable energy future? Why continue obfuscating the problem and preventing people from galvanizing on the topic?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:13PM (2 children)
Climate change concern has no necessary relation to a sustainable energy future. In fact, you would be best off dropping the climate change angle altogether if that is your true concern, since it only confuses/obfuscates the actual issue.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:40PM (1 child)
No, the actual issue is that our current methods of power generation are destabilizing the global climate much quicker than the natural oscillations that occur. Just because you are a cynical fool who has bought into the "liberal climate change conspiracy" does not make it less valid a reason to reduce carbon fuels.
YOU are the one confusing and obfuscating here. Seriously, you lot are getting unbearable with your requirement that we not discuss topics that offend your delicate sensibilities. If you only care about the renewable/sustainable energy aspect then fine, just discuss that. Don't try and rope people into your own delusions about climate conspiracy because that only obfuscates and confuses the issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:50PM
Here is what was written:
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:24PM (12 children)
When the people telling me to change my way of life give up meat, cars, air conditioning, almonds, heaters, private jets, etc then I will consider making the change. Those in power that are legitimately concerned need to walk the talk.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:07PM (5 children)
Or instead of passing the buck along you can make whatever incremental changes you are OK with. Maybe eat a little less meat? Have one day a week meat-free? Try to drive less and carpool more? Plan your activities to reduce last-minute drives to the store? Upgrade to more efficient appliances and vehicles? Or just install solar? Try and eliminate use of disposable containers and products by getting a reusable coffee cup and using reusable containers?
So many items you can work on if you care, but from the tone of it you're more outraged that anyone expects you to care about the environment in a way that needs the slightest change to your daily life. I'm not a perfect environmentalist either but I don't try and pass the blame on to anyone but myself.
I think someone nailed it climate deniers simply don't want the convenient life to change and there is really nothing else to it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:19PM (4 children)
Actually if they eat almost only meat but cut out grains and sugar many people will eat a lot less (fewer hunger cravings). If you want people to stop overeating the best way (for many) involves a high percentage of meat in the diet.
So, I don't know how it would work out but your plan of cutting out meat may end up having the exact opposite effect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:59PM (3 children)
BZZZZT WRONG
You can achieve the same thing with plant proteins. No one should substitute their meat protein for carbs.
Here, get informed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:04PM (2 children)
It is probably possible, but a vegan-low carb diet sounds really annoying. How are you going to eat a vegetarian diet with under 50 carbs per day?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:19AM (1 child)
It is 100% possible, plenty of people do it. It is probably a bad idea to switch your diet immediately, I suggest slowly reducing the amount of meat you eat until you have just a few meals a week with it. We really don't need to eat meat on a daily basis, nutritionally speaking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:25AM
I know plenty of vegetarians, they eat craploads of carbs. Most people on the standard diet also eat craploads of carbs, vegetarian is probably healthier than that.
However, I am talking about reducing peoples appetites by having them eat very few carbs (under 50 g per day). I think this would be difficult to do without eating meat.
Do you know of anyone eating a vegetarian/vegan diet who consumes less than 50 or even 100 g of carbs per day?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:14PM (1 child)
It seems very unlikely that any meaningful walking-the-walk of the powerful will ever happen. They're almost never first in these things; in fact they're almost always last. They live lives of privilege because they intend to live lives of privilege, not because they're inclined to sacrifice things for the likes of you and me.
Either we change our lives at the level of the common man, or we face whatever consequences are coming down the pike because "those in power didn't, so we didn't."
It might also be worth keeping in mind that those in power will have far more ability to deal with said consequences than the common man will. They would be the ones with the huge A/C plants, the high walls, the big guns, the armed and armored storehouses. The rest of us would be left scrabbling for whatever scraps or power and resources left over, because we simply can't pull that kind of resource-collection off.
Finally, reducing emissions makes sense on a number of levels quite aside from any threat of climate change. We should do it anyway. It's obvious. If you actually think it through.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:38AM
When the SHTF their money will stop being green. That scares the pants off them.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:52PM
Ah yes, the "Al Gore does it, so it must be OK" defense. I'll freely admit the dude is a bit hypocritical, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about global climate change.
Well, I'm going to suggest you change your way of life a bit, and I don't generally eat meat, don't use AC, have never owned a private jet, and don't particularly like almonds. I do own a car, which I need to living well outside public transit coverage, but I don't drive it all that much. As for giving up heating, no, I'm not going to do that, because plumbing + temperatures below freezing = major problems. Instead, I'm trying to reduce my usage of heating fuel by making my home hold heat better than it used to, and replacing the oil-based heating system with something more efficient when my money situation allows.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 09 2018, @11:51PM (2 children)
No Almonds for Sulla! Let him eat figs instead! Good enough for Augustus. (And, oh, we're coming for your capital gains, Chuck!)
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:25AM (1 child)
I'd gladly pay capital gains if only I had some capital to gain!
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:36AM
Fair enough. But pass on the figs, I hear they are poisoned!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:48AM
And where have you put your money?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:28PM
What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing? [pics.me.me]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @08:09PM
No it won't. Everybody knows it'll be janrinok's fault!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:03AM
And you'll do the same, if some short-sighted climate mitigation approach does the same, right?
Back at you.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @06:57PM (15 children)
How do you trust a field that can't see the obvious staring them right in the face? They are acolytes of the Prince of the Power of the Air.
For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
ipfs.io [ipfs.io]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:16PM (14 children)
I shoulda been more careful about clicking that link. Don't get too crazy, there isn't much point in debating whether we live in a simulation or not. What does that change about your daily life? If everything is an illusion except you then that is a recipe for sociopath/psycho behavior. If everything is an illusion but other people are real inside the simulation then you still want to treat the illusion like reality.
It doesn't matter either way, you should still be a decent human being. Even proving we live in a simulation would do nothing unless you can somehow break out of it. The whole concept is just a useless mind-fuck like Inception or The Matrix. Interesting but not worth basing your life around.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @07:28PM (13 children)
There is no simulation. But atheists are more amenable to evidence suggesting there is a simulation, than the actual reality behind it. And once you see the evidence, you can not un-see it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:28PM (11 children)
Just for the record, I'm an atheist, quite hard-core as atheists go, and I think the idea that we live in, that is "we are a", simulation, is both both entirely ridiculous and roundly hilarious. For one thing, as there is no evidence at all, it's impossible to be "amenable" to it. For another, there's no indication at all that a system able to support such a simulation is practical, not only using any technology we have, but also any technology we can extrapolate to, no matter how far we go ahead using what we know.
The simulation idea isn't quite as ridiculous as the various "god" ideas, as it actually might be just possible (although never practical) with "unknown science", but it's very close, as it shares all of these characteristics: no evidence, no supporting science, untestable, no tenable excuse for the broken results of either the "godly creation" or the "simulation", and of no practical value whatsoever outside of trying to influence behavior via a nice smelly dose of bullshit.
But hey. Keep on pointing at atheists. I guess it lights your fire somehow?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:53PM (5 children)
I call bullshit on this. Have you seen the level of detail and complexity of *our* video games, *today*? How much of the world around you really needs to be simulated, and in how much detail, for it to be believable?
There certainly doesn't need to be a simulation of every particle in the universe, as some assume to be the only possible way such a simulation could be implemented. Really, only those objects observed need be simulated accurately, and even then only in as much detail as is required to fool the observer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:06PM (3 children)
That is because you are easily wowed and have zero concept about the limitations behind *our* video games. To simulate a universe where the people inside can verify "physical reality" with a variety of experiments would be insanely hard. It goes way beyond just simulating reality at the Large Hadron Collider. You are trying to say it is possible, and no one yet has said it isn't.
Just not practical. Why invest all the money and effort into simulating reality? Why do it without the inhabitant's knowledge? Probably easier to dump a bunch of humanoids on a planet. So again, sure it may be possible but it is so ridiculous and impractical that it makes no sense. Why bother wasting your energy on the idea? Give the idea a spin, enjoy the mental games, then let it go unless it somehow becomes more relevant.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:45AM
I'll say it's not possible then. The data storage requirements would be physically prohibitive. You would need less matter to actually make this universe than to store every particle in it's state.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:36AM (1 child)
The thing with a simulation is that while simulating our universe within our universe seems impossible, we don't know anything about the universe that's running the simulation. It could be that other universe operates under entirely different physics, making things possible that would impossible in our universe, and in comparison our universe is actually very simple and thus easy to simulate. And we'd have no idea because this universe is all we know.
To use the video game analogy, the video game characters would only know the in-game universe, and wouldn't know anything about the universe that's running their simulation (game) and what's possible in our universe. For example, to run a simulation you'd need a computer - a CPU, some kind of storage, and something like electricity to make it go. I don't know any game engines that support the physics do something like that at any kind of scale, and such concepts would be completely alien to the characters in the game. Even for game engines where an intelligent in-game character could create a very rudimentary computer such as Minecraft, said character might realize that theoretically one could build a computer to run Minecraft out of redstone in their universe, but would logically conclude that would be completely impractical to do so and thus "impossible".
That's not to say I believe that our universe is a simulation, but like trying to prove there's no God, there's really no way to completely disprove it.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday October 10 2018, @05:39PM
IOW, it's all made-up nonsense. No science, no evidence, nothing. Pretty much just like any other religion. That was my point.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday October 10 2018, @01:49PM
And there is the explanation why the Universe expands and the expansion is accelerated: the observation power of humanity increases and more needs to be eliminated from the observable field to keep up the veracity of the simulation within the same computation power.
This is also why the gyroscopes of the Hubble telescope are failing - stopgap solution for those running the simulation to slow down the increase computation complexity - but be prepared for a jolt in the acceleration of Universe expansion with the launch of James Webb telescope.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:09AM (3 children)
The no evidence part is where I think you are wrong. (And I don't mean for a simulation, rather for a powerful delusion.) Testable? No. Because of the same problems you are going to run into if it was a simulation. But you can establish that something is off. So take a look.
What is Winter Sunlight?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:11AM (2 children)
Evidence which is impossible to test? How about you come up with something that isn't dumb?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:51AM (1 child)
What is Winter Sunlight?
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @07:38AM
A yellow-colored cleaner suitable for smearing smudges on glass. Glad I could help.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:51AM
And free will does not exist. There is nothing you can do but sit back and enjoy the ride
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:23AM
Wake me up when hacker tools are available.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:10PM (5 children)
Oh fuck off already. Just admit that you will NEVER accept climate research because you have some kind of perverse emotional investment in the status quo and are unwilling to accept that you might possibly be responsible, even indirectly, to the fact that in less than a century the world as we know it will be so disrupted that it will cause untold economic loses, war, and a heck of a lot of human suffering in general.
Seriously, you hold up one random student's supposed audit of data (from some blog that doesn't even say what kind of PhD the student is working towards) and claim that that is enough to invalidate the work of hundreds of scientists from all over the world?
Never mind that we are *already* seeing the results of climate change with multiple back to back record temperatures, increasing # of storms and increased storm intensity. But no, like a typical right-wing denier you desperately cling to every lie you can get your hands around because you, to quote, can't handle the truth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:17PM (2 children)
I grew up with liberal parents in a very liberal area and the late teen and early adult years were rough ideologically because I still had to learn how shitty the world was, how many bad things are done by the government. I always figured the government was too big to get away with the horrors that it does, that someone would SAY SOMETHING.
My point is that the world is a pretty crazy place and fully accepting the depth of the shitshow can be more than one mind can take. It takes time and at least the majority of counter arguments are no longer "climate change isn't real!" That doesn't excuse the person you are railing against, I just wanted to share my little insight into how humans come to terms with "the truth". It is often a slow process, more so for society at large due to the group effect.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @09:23PM
Who argued this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:36AM
Don't worry. We understand. You illustrate this truth every time you post. So when do we kill all men, who are not angels, so that angelic women can implement an anarcho-capitalist utopia? We're going to need to do it quickly, because the last time capitalism, as implemented by men, who are not angels, was at this level of crisis, nobody had nukes. Now everybody has nukes, and while I realize that N-day won't be the end of all life on earth (look at Chernobyl), I think we need to step up the timeline. I'm deeply concerned for the Earth Mother, and anarcho-capitalism seems like the perfect system to enable angelic women to begin fixing the damage men, who are not angels, have caused. The angelic nature of women will guide them to a deep understanding of enlightened self-interest that men, not being angels because they lack wombs, cannot ever comprehend.
/s
(Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Wednesday October 10 2018, @04:29AM (1 child)
What exactly is the problem here? Let's read the complaint rather than issue yet another argument from authority.
While some of that is just shoddy data collection, some of it is possible evidence for biases that would exaggerate warming since the beginning of the industrial era.
And? It's not that much to go on since none of those observations, such as they are, tell us how fast warming is occurring.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:41PM
You remind me of someone that argued how seat belts are idiotic and cause deaths because you will not be able to escape a burning wreck as you get tangled up in them.... I've heard that over and over and why that person never wears seat belt.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-126.18,21.63,592/loc=139.301,8.652 [nullschool.net]
See the "data"? Seems it's kind of warm out there?? I see a lot more red than blue. Yeah, magic data page.... who would have thought!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 09 2018, @10:21PM (6 children)
Ok, let's take this seriously. Stop ALL rocket launches, ALL commercial flights, and remove ALL i-c-e's over 3.0L from the roads. Sorry Bubba, no more v8 5.7L trucks. No more AMG 6.3L Mercs, no more Dodge Vipers, no F1 or F-anything racing. In terms of trade and services, what stops, stops. Tough. We re-invent and are forced to go local.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:30AM
And if you have more than two children the extra ones have to be killed. I mean, if we're taking AGW seriously...
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:33AM
If you have more than two children, the extra ones need to be killed. I mean if we're taking AGW seriously...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by arslan on Wednesday October 10 2018, @02:05AM
No no no no... everyone knows the solution is massive amount of government spending on trickle down economics, after all why just solve a problem when you can solve it and line yours and your cronies?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:28PM
This would be reasonable. It's not like the system wouldn't work without all that, in fact it has for thousands of years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @12:49PM (1 child)
Except you didn't take it seriously at ALL. It has nothing to do with F1 racing or rocket launches or v8 10L trucks. It has everything to do with lack of policy so that on average we are not driving V8s but electric, and V8s are banned from *MASS MANUFACTURING*.
If I take a dump on the street, someone may post it on youtube how an idiot took a dump in the street. If 1000000 people do that in one city one day, you probably have a major fucking problem. Scale. That's the problem. 1 Bubba with a pickup is not a problem. 100 million Bubbas with their pickups are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 10 2018, @03:50PM
San Francisco?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/18/san-francisco-poop-problem-inequality-homelessness [theguardian.com]
I read one story about how so many people pissed and shit on a lightpole at one corner that it collapsed. It was nearby where a tree had no branches because crackheads kept cracking them off to declog their pipes. The tree had already been replaced 4 times due to this.
I wonder what the opinion about climate change is in San Francisco.