1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Climate Change? Nahhh ...

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Riptide, Oct 23, 2015.

  1. RevPastor

    RevPastor Member

    I find it very indicative of the intelligence level of this site that this is a 19 page discussion...
     
  2. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    LOL.

    Alma has competition.
     
  3. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    I find it indicative of your intelligence if you think this thread consists of just climate change.
     
  4. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    John Oliver forgot to include the NY Times "climate refugee" story.

     
  5. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

     
  6. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

  7. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    Koko, the gorilla that can talk with humans, was recently informed
    of what was at stake during the world's climate-related summit.
    Edited for brevity and continuity, this is how she responded.


     
  8. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    The Earth's climate has had hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of cooling and heating cycles. Why is this brief period -- which has already stopped -- the one out of all those hundreds or thousands of cycles that was not supposed to happen?
     
  9. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    Golly, Tony, what could have changed the world over the past 100 years? What a stumper ...
     
  10. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Doesn't come close to answering my question.
     
  11. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    Was Koko yelling?
     
  12. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    The Uninhabitable Earth
    Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us:
    What climate change could wreak — sooner than you think.


    It is, I promise, worse than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today. And yet the swelling seas — and the cities they will drown — have so dominated the picture of global warming, and so overwhelmed our capacity for climate panic, that they have occluded our perception of other threats, many much closer at hand. Rising oceans are bad, in fact very bad; but fleeing the coastline will not be enough.

    Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century.

    Even when we train our eyes on climate change, we are unable to comprehend its scope. This past winter, a string of days 60 and 70 degrees warmer than normal baked the North Pole, melting the permafrost that encased Norway’s Svalbard seed vault — a global food bank nicknamed “Doomsday,” designed to ensure that our agriculture survives any catastrophe, and which appeared to have been flooded by climate change less than ten years after being built.

    The Doomsday vault is fine, for now: The structure has been secured and the seeds are safe. But treating the episode as a parable of impending flooding missed the more important news. Until recently, permafrost was not a major concern of climate scientists, because, as the name suggests, it was soil that stayed permanently frozen. But Arctic permafrost contains 1.8 trillion tons of carbon, more than twice as much as is currently suspended in the Earth’s atmosphere. When it thaws and is released, that carbon may evaporate as methane, which is 34 times as powerful a greenhouse-gas warming blanket as carbon dioxide when judged on the timescale of a century; when judged on the timescale of two decades, it is 86 times as powerful. In other words, we have, trapped in Arctic permafrost, twice as much carbon as is currently wrecking the atmosphere of the planet, all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up, partially in the form of a gas that multiplies its warming power 86 times over.

    Maybe you know that already — there are alarming stories every day, like last month’s satellite data showing the globe warming, since 1998, more than twice as fast as scientists had thought. Or the news from Antarctica this past May, when a crack in an ice shelf grew 11 miles in six days, then kept going; the break now has just three miles to go — by the time you read this, it may already have met the open water, where it will drop into the sea one of the biggest icebergs ever, a process known poetically as “calving.”

    But no matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough. Over the past decades, our culture has gone apocalyptic with zombie movies and Mad Max dystopias, perhaps the collective result of displaced climate anxiety, and yet when it comes to contemplating real-world warming dangers, we suffer from an incredible failure of imagination. The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called “scientific reticence” in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn’t even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear. But aversion arising from fear is a form of denial, too.

    When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.

     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page