A 3°C world has no safe place
economist.com
A 3°C world has no safe place
1–10 of 291 posts
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#2Maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but I wish that the Fahrenheit increase would have been more prominently used over these years. I think that most Americans don't realize that 1°C is more than 1°F so it doesn't sound as bad when it's "only a few degrees"
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#3Canada and northern part of the US will be fine (north of the mason dixon line). Places like Albany, NY, or Minesota, or most of Canada, appart from the occasional crazy swings, are going to be more lovely places to live, with slightly milder winters.
The southern part is toast, both from water level rises, and lack of fresh water.
In this country, the ones that are going to be the most affected by global warming, seem like to care the less.
PS: Canada has a target goal to reach 100mil by 2100. They know they are going to be a more milder place to live overall (with the crazy swing), and there will be much more areas open for human habitation. That's why they are increasing their immigration quotas.
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#4Maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but I wish that the Fahrenheit increase would have been more prominently used over these years. I think that most Americans don't realize that 1°C is more than 1°F so it doesn't sound as bad when it's "only a few degrees"
Ok but even 1°C is pretty bad? Even 1°F is bad.
If we were going for emotional effect shouldn't it be expressed in Kelvin, or a temperature scale that is designed specifically to scare the public? Something where 3°C is 20°Scare?
E: Kelvin doesn't work for scaring the public unless it is reported as an absolute temperature. TIL.
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#5Maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but I wish that the Fahrenheit increase would have been more prominently used over these years. I think that most Americans don't realize that 1°C is more than 1°F so it doesn't sound as bad when it's "only a few degrees"
I don't think it would make any difference, TBH. A difference of 3°C is "only" 5.4°F. That still doesn't seem too bad, at first thought, until you realize that it's 5.4°F difference forever (or, at least well into the foreseeable future).
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#6Canada and northern part of the US will be fine (north of the mason dixon line). Places like Albany, NY, or Minesota, or most of Canada, appart from the occasional crazy swings, are going to be more lovely places to live, with slightly milder winters. The southern part is toast, both from water level rises, and lack of fresh water. In this country, the ones that are going to be the most affected by global warming, se…
I'm not sure that they care less or they are just too terrified to actually think about it.
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#7What are they talking about?
In the US this will mean more rain in many regions and longer growing seasons. A lot of plants will quickly adapt.
Historically, our planet for most of its history was warmer. It’s all going to be fine, while we will need to adjust the world will continue on.
Note: I’m not saying it won’t be hard, but this will be a gradual change and will actually assist some places, while others get more harsh. I’m just so tired of the negativity.
There’s also a lot of common errors people make. For instance, is this avg temp? Where are we taking measurements? Everyone realizes year to year there’s average drifts that are pretty substantial around the earth... etc etc
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#8Maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but I wish that the Fahrenheit increase would have been more prominently used over these years. I think that most Americans don't realize that 1°C is more than 1°F so it doesn't sound as bad when it's "only a few degrees"
Perhaps. But I suspect the bigger issue is that even 5.4°F still doesn't sound like much. It's hard to communicate that the average temperature implies much higher highs and many
"unusually hot" days.
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#9Maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but I wish that the Fahrenheit increase would have been more prominently used over these years. I think that most Americans don't realize that 1°C is more than 1°F so it doesn't sound as bad when it's "only a few degrees"
Ok but even 1°C is pretty bad? Even 1°F is bad. If we were going for emotional effect shouldn't it be expressed in Kelvin, or a temperature scale that is designed specifically to scare the public? Something where 3°C is 20°Scare? E: Kelvin doesn't work for scaring the public unless it is reported as an absolute temperature. TIL.
> If we were going for emotional effect shouldn't it be expressed in Kelvin
A difference in 1K is equivalent to 1C difference. The thing is, when Celsius scale was invented, they didn't have a concept of "absolute zero" yet.
Once "absolute zero" was known, then Kelvin units were invented, which were equivalent to C except that 0 means absolute zero.
Re: A 3°C world has no safe place
#10Canada and northern part of the US will be fine (north of the mason dixon line). Places like Albany, NY, or Minesota, or most of Canada, appart from the occasional crazy swings, are going to be more lovely places to live, with slightly milder winters. The southern part is toast, both from water level rises, and lack of fresh water. In this country, the ones that are going to be the most affected by global warming, se…
Tell that to the residents of Lytton.