SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A new study in Nature [Ed-Abstract only for non-subscribers, but see below.] predicts that climate warming will be 15% greater than previous high estimates have predicted. This new study suggests that humans need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than previously expected and more than the Paris Agreement calls for. This study was based on analyzing the earth's "energy budget" (absorption and re-emission of radiation) and inputting that into a number of different climate models.
Also covered in more detail in Phys.org and in the Guardian.
The researchers focused on comparing model projections and observations of the spatial and seasonal patterns of how energy flows from Earth to space. Interestingly, the models that best simulate the recent past of these energy exchanges between the planet and its surroundings tend to project greater-than-average warming in the future.
"Our results suggest that it doesn't make sense to dismiss the most-severe global warming projections based on the fact that climate models are imperfect in their simulation of the current climate," Brown said. "On the contrary, if anything, we are showing that model shortcomings can be used to dismiss the least-severe projections."
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday December 11 2017, @06:53PM (1 child)
But we are warming now. Many parts of the world are seeing record temperatures year after year, especially for winter highs. In my area, the highest recorded March temperature record was broken last year; it replaced the previous record which was set the previous year.
And yes, environmentalists and climate change activists are not really the same group of people. They are actually starkly divided on the issue of science: environmentalists are traditionally anti-technology and are responsible for the way the EU regulates things like new chemicals or genetic engineering where we can't possibly understand the implications yet, while climate change activists are very pro-technology and carry a bias to believe the scientific community. One way this rears its head is on the topic of nuclear energy. Climate change activists would love to replace fossil fuels with nuclear, which would quickly cut emissions right now, but environmentalists are one of the primary groups standing in its way because of skepticism about its safety and an unwillingness to store the waste products basically anywhere.
I'd rather see the environmentalists win, myself. But because they are the side that is skeptical of science, they are also the side that is incapable of producing novel solutions. Which is why they don't really have a solution besides de-industrializing.
And we need real solutions to the problems you mention. But I don't think that we can just use America's "specialized infrastructure" to move the entire populations of low-lying countries elsewhere. Problems:
1) Fixed infrastructure like highways and fueling stations are not movable and must be constructed anew.
2) Distribution networks are geographically specialized and must be developed anew.
3) The US is still going to need its infrastructure and the people running it at home.
4) The people living in those countries don't want to move.
5) The people living near those countries don't want migrants settling in their own country, even decades or centuries after settlement [aljazeera.com]. The people living in Western democracies don't want them either. The only places that want them are places like Dubai, who need an underclass of migrant workers [dailymail.co.uk] to build their shiny tourist traps.
What you propose is pre-emptively moving millions of people against their will, to places that don't want them, requiring massive infrastructure that hasn't been built yet. Such a project would require imposing a command economy to implement a few Stalin-esque 5-year plans. So would settings aside land for ecosystem preservation, which let's face it has basically the same set of underlying problems.
Which is the real reason why nobody wants to seriously consider solving the ripple effects of climate change and would rather try to stop it in the first place.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 11 2017, @08:03PM
Sorry, I meant warming more now. Some of the long term effects of global warming should be seen in the short term with warming beyond that explained by the short term radiative model. Instead we're pretty much on the nose for no net feedback on short term global warming.
There are other ways to skin that cat. Let us keep in mind that there is already a substantial amount of immigration and most of the world is becoming wealthy enough to support immigrant populations. And I still don't see here the massive R&D expenditures you claimed would be necessary earlier for this task.
I think the real reason is the massive public funding. There's a lot of easy money out there for those with the right narrative. Even the oil companies can get in [greentechmedia.com] on that action.