71–80 of 257 posts
So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical. Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't know the answer.
So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical. Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't know the answer.
Ticks are getting worse in my neck of the woods. If they keep getting worse, that would really suck.
So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical. Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't know the answer.
Bad news -- drought/blight/warmth could destroy crops...perhaps even be an extinction level event.
Good news -- there is none.. likelihood of aliens or future humans saving us is next to nil.
I think we have maybe 50 years till we're close to any near ELE but my kid might see it.
So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical. Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't know the answer.
I was also convinced that this was a reasonable way of looking at things because often the "climate change debate" is portrayed as two-sided; one arguing that climate change isn't a big deal and one arguing that it is. This leads to the false supposition that the true answer lies somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately it does not. For me, one of the most eye-opening experiences was reading an article from the New…
Look at figure 10.1 on page 690 of the IPCC’s AR5 WG II report. As it shows, most of the studies on the total impact of climate change for increases between 2.6 and 4.8 °C, which is the range for the IPCC’s highest emissions scenario during the 21st century, result in estimates of the impact on welfare equivalent to a change between 0% and −3% in GNP. Positive effects are included in the estimates, so 0% and two positive values appear outside the range. This is not about the economic impact but about the total impact on welfare, so it really is what is relevant. The factors considered by the studies include variation in agricultural yield, water availability, changes in tourism flow, energy demand, impact on human health, labor productivity.
How bad do you think −3% is during the 21st century? That’s less than 0.035% less economic growth starting in 2014 when the Fifth Assessment Report was published. Even a policy that was completely effective at entirely preventing any global warming could only be justified if its cost was otherwise less than 0.035%. The policies we could implement would not be completely effective and would certainly cost more than 0.035%. Therefore the expected value of doing nothing about global warming is higher than the expected value of doing something.
So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical. Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't know the answer.
So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical. Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't know the answer.
I know you are not debating the issue, but to me one of the most interesting questions is why do people deny this even when they have no vested interest?
One obvious answer is that it’s become a party platform issue and those that do have an interest have poisoned the well of thought for large numbers of people.
Maybe that’s part of it, but it’s hard to believe it’s that simplistic and there is no other psychology at play. Whatever lack of respect one has for an opposing political party, you’d think after hearing enough doomsday scenarios it would at least be worth digging in a little to see what all the fuss is about.