121–130 of 132 posts
A more effective sign that would be more enduring would be one featuring a recent photo next to a photo from 40 years ago at each location, to make the change very real.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really fucking clear-cut from a risk management point of view.
I mean, so is Pascal's Wager. I'm no climate scientist, but from what little I've read is that _all_ climate models are terrible at predicting more than 10-20 days out, and are on the same level of accuracy as financial forecasting models (i.e., 'not at all'). In my vast and inky ignorance, I'm just not convinced we need to _drastically revamp the entire economy soup to nuts_ in order to satisfy predictions from inac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really fucking clear-cut from a risk management point of view.
I mean, so is Pascal's Wager. I'm no climate scientist, but from what little I've read is that _all_ climate models are terrible at predicting more than 10-20 days out, and are on the same level of accuracy as financial forecasting models (i.e., 'not at all'). In my vast and inky ignorance, I'm just not convinced we need to _drastically revamp the entire economy soup to nuts_ in order to satisfy predictions from inac…
I agree.
> climate models are terrible at predicting more than 10-20 days out
Note that if your weeding is in 30 days at noon, and you want to know if it's going to rain, then you are doomed. There are no good enough models for that precision.
But if you want to estimate the total rainfall during the year the problem gets easier. Not very easy or easy, just easier than predicting which day will rain in approximately a month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, so is Pascal's Wager. I'm no climate scientist, but from what little I've read is that _all_ climate models are terrible at predicting more than 10-20 days out, and are on the same level of accuracy as financial forecasting models (i.e., 'not at all'). In my vast and inky ignorance, I'm just not convinced we need to _drastically revamp the entire economy soup to nuts_ in order to satisfy predictions from inac…
> I mean, so is Pascal's Wager. I agree. > climate models are terrible at predicting more than 10-20 days out Note that if your weeding is in 30 days at noon, and you want to know if it's going to rain, then you are doomed. There are no good enough models for that precision. But if you want to estimate the total rainfall during the year the problem gets easier. Not very easy or easy, just easier than predicting which…
a very good one-day forecast for SPY is between -9% and +5%.
a very good one-year forecast for SPY is between -45% and +95%.
a very good 20 year forecast for SPY is between 5% and 18%.
One can imagine how somebody looks at the uncertainty of the one-day and says 'fuck it, I'm not buying any stocks'. But they'll be outperformed by people who understand the bigger picture.
Warnings of impending problems serve a real purpose even if they miss the mark. We absolutely want folks thinking about environmental responsibility, and the consequences of their choices. Unfortunately, some of the more doom and gloom predictions can send young people down the wrong path. I remember listening to 10 in 2010 and imagining that I would never make it to 40. Well here we are in 2020, and somewhere along…
How much research has been done into the positive effects of global warming? More rainfall, warmer waters, more tropical climate. It's hard to believe these things might be bad. Has no one done this kind of research before?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's changing a lot, it's a big problem, it's almost entirely because of humans, and we should do everything we can. https://xkcd.com/1732/
Should we do everything we can? A mass killing would reduce gases is that on the table? Let's agree to stop dealing in absolutes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just plain bullying. I'd suggest to ignore these trolls. Whole climate thing has turned into a useless political drama and scare-marketing. Impossible to have a decent conversation without being labeled as a "denier" or "ignorant" by crazy lunatics.
==Impossible to have a decent conversation without being labeled as a "denier" or "ignorant" by crazy lunatics== You manage to victimize yourself while calling others "crazy lunatics." Do you see how you are engaging in the exact activity you accuse others of?
The park is reportedly replacing the sign with a more nebulous and less falsifiable edict: “When [the glaciers] will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the discussion has gotten completely off the rails and become politicized to a degree that makes it impossible to discuss rationally. The scientific mind is always and should always be skeptical to absolute claims like the glaciers are melting and NY is underwater soon. The "hoax" is not with regards to the climate but with regards to those who claim the glacier is melting in 2020. The media is th…
==Yes the climate is changing as it always have, no it's not something we don't know how to deal with over the next 80 years.== This is the same type of false authority you claim the media to be pushing. You do not know this to be true, why would you say it? ==So lets all just chill and stop letting the media control the narrative.== Agreed. Let's let scientists control the narrative. What do they have to say?
That's why I say it. By all means. Let me know what we can't handle, but as far as I am aware we know how to handle the climate. In fact we've become so good at it that people who dies from climate related disaster have plummeted the last 100 years.
Scientist say that the climate is changing but it's not catastrophic and it's not something we don't know how to handle. Even the latest IPCC report has toned down their fear of the future.
Warnings of impending problems serve a real purpose even if they miss the mark. We absolutely want folks thinking about environmental responsibility, and the consequences of their choices. Unfortunately, some of the more doom and gloom predictions can send young people down the wrong path. I remember listening to 10 in 2010 and imagining that I would never make it to 40. Well here we are in 2020, and somewhere along…
How much research has been done into the positive effects of global warming? More rainfall, warmer waters, more tropical climate. It's hard to believe these things might be bad. Has no one done this kind of research before?