Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit. I understand their desire to sensationalize, but people like AOC make the same predictions, and she is not seen as smart by a large portion of the public. I think if we just stick with the experimental science research, the general pu…
Citations on wild predictions in past not being correct?
We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says
51–60 of 152 posts
Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit. I understand their desire to sensationalize, but people like AOC make the same predictions, and she is not seen as smart by a large portion of the public. I think if we just stick with the experimental science research, the general pu…
Citations on wild predictions in past not being correct?
"the population bomb," eg
Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says
#53Does "no more permanent ice" means there is a period of the year where there is no ice at all at the poles? That seems hardly believable. I was also under the impression that melting ice would push the level of the oceans by multiple meters. If 75-80% of ice has already melted, wouldn't we have seen significant elevation already? Just some facts that I found surprising, coming from someone who doesn't know much on th…
The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit. I understand their desire to sensationalize, but people like AOC make the same predictions, and she is not seen as smart by a large portion of the public. I think if we just stick with the experimental science research, the general pu…
They aren't making that claim - they are saying that if we don't adjust things before 4 years we're going to have a problem. You're basically arguing that if you don't have skin cancer when you come in for the afternoon, it can't be the sun causing it.
Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says
#54No we don't. Hyperbole around climate change just makes people more likely to disregard the actual dangers.
It's not clear to me if you've forgotten to provide evidence for the “No, we don’t”, or if you are making the argument that the assertion that the characterization of the danger as so imminent makes people less likely to believe and therefore the characterization is false.
See you in 2023.
Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit. I understand their desire to sensationalize, but people like AOC make the same predictions, and she is not seen as smart by a large portion of the public. I think if we just stick with the experimental science research, the general pu…
Citations on wild predictions in past not being correct?
The Population Bomb by Paul Elrich back in 1968 predicted worldwide famine in the 70s and 80s because of overpopulation. There's been quite a few over the last few decades relating to overpopulation, environmental destruction and running out of vital resources to keep civilization going. So far, these dire predictions have not come true. Which doesn't men they can't, but they should give us some pause about predicting the collapse of civilization or the environment, particularly in the short run.
Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says
#56Another wild prediction. This person's wild claim is that if go on with the current path the ocean's will rise 7 meters and there will be worse storms. You can visit http://www.floodmap.net/ and see how 7 meters is nothing, even discounting that we can adapt and protect against flooding. Worse storms are bad, but if the alternative is "World War II-style transformation of industry", what alternative is that? How can…
that sites UI is so bad, seems like low hanging fruit for some React frontend wizard to redo and make the defacto site to go to for climate / flooding visualizations
Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says
#57The key part from the article: "The level of carbon now in the atmosphere hasn’t been seen in 12 million years". What was the Earth like 13 million years ago? Or 130 million years? A snapshot in time does little to provide actual context.
I have little trust in forensically invented snapshots over concrete measurements, as well.
Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says
#58Does "no more permanent ice" means there is a period of the year where there is no ice at all at the poles? That seems hardly believable. I was also under the impression that melting ice would push the level of the oceans by multiple meters. If 75-80% of ice has already melted, wouldn't we have seen significant elevation already? Just some facts that I found surprising, coming from someone who doesn't know much on th…
The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit. I understand their desire to sensationalize, but people like AOC make the same predictions, and she is not seen as smart by a large portion of the public. I think if we just stick with the experimental science research, the general pu…
> The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended, similar to how wild predictions in the past have not borne fruit.
Please don't misrepresent claims that "we have X years to stop global warming before it becomes irreversible" as "the earth will be uninhabitable in X years."
Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of Earth's history made it a completely uninhabitable place for humans. Seems like it would be in our combined best interest to prevent it from becoming that way again.
+2.5C increase will render earth uninhabitable? Or will it upset insurance coverage of high dollar coast lines?
2.5C global increase is huge. It's a chaotic system, with a crazy number of interconnected feedback loops. Think of the earth's climate like a boulder balanced on a hill.
Aside from just counter-arguing your point which is easily brushed off, I want to ask a genuine question - What about this dialogue makes you skeptical? What's your view of what's really going on? Politically or otherwise.
Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says
#60The loss of sea ice is stoking US heat waves: https://phys.org/news/2019-06-loss-arctic-sea-ice-stokes.htm... Intense heat is also predicted for Europe this summer: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/accuweather-2019... James Anderson, the scientist from the article, also has linked ozone depletion with climate change: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-ozone-prob...
I think his four years is too fast but I also don't think we can totally destroy the planet (aside from nuclear destruction). We know too much and have too much technology. Some (small?) fragment of civilization will survive while the earth recovers. For example, methane has a half life of seven years so it will take some time. The more immediate threat seems to be around food and water. The Ogallala Aquifer is dryin…
With all due respect, I strongly doubt anybody would be seriously impacted by that aquifer outside of North America.
This said, anything that turns Americans angrier is a security risk for the rest of the world.