111–120 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I was looking at this and thinking "At 20m, basically the entire Eastern and Southern Seaboard of the US is gone."
Not at all. Those living along the shore have flood insurance which will continue to pay for restoration of the coastline.
That generosity isn't endless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. Those living along the shore have flood insurance which will continue to pay for restoration of the coastline.
I live in NJ. As I understand it, the state gov - via taxpayers, obviously - subsidizes property insurance at the shore (as NJ calls the beach). That generosity isn't endless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scientists know this. Paleoclimatology is one big part of climatology. But the outcome is the opposite - you should be more scared, since it shows that climate can change massively. That affects things like agriculture or sea level. What would you assume the sea level was, when those plants were alive? For example, with very quick search: "In general, world oceans were about 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) hi…
Okay, I'd like to respond to this, " ... you should be more scared, " Can you reason to that position? Here is how I see it, and perhaps that will make my position more clear. I'm going to die (so are you). Every year, the probability that I'm going to die in the next year goes up bit by bit. I don't expect to read articles that continually harp on "look how close to death you are, are you sure you don't want to eat…
Yes, the IPCC is finally coming around to using the words irreversible and abrupt in their assessments.
> You can play with the current IPCC model, change where the clouds form, and get an ice age.
I don't recall seeing any mention of a potential pathway to an ice age in any IPCC report or any recent paper from a peer reviewed journal. Are you saying that there is at least one IPCC contributor who will admit that the models are so uncertain that we don't know whether to expect an ice age instead of catastrophic warming?
> weaponize anxiety to encourage action
A reasonable way to encourage action when nothing has been working. People are going even further than attempting to appeal to emotion, they're actually blocking streets and engaging in civil disobedience. That's because people still believe there's hope for themselves and / or their children and they care to attempt to push for the best outcome possible.
> "Being scared" and "being anxious" isn't productive
It absolutely can be. Sometimes you need a good amount of fear or anxiety to kick you in the ass and cause you to act. That's how most of my writing in high school got done as I didn't do anything until the panic set in. It's not ideal, but again...nothing else has been working.
> what I see as fear mongering headlines and articles trying to steer resources to one and only one cause
How many causes are as important as the preservation of habitat for homo sapiens? I don't think very many people share your "No big deal, ... look forward to seeing what the new apex predator looks like" point of view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay. So what do you think will happen when a significant chunk of the United States economic power is under water?
I suspect it will look like Amsterdam, or Venice, or any number of cities that figured out how to cope with existing at or below sea level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The scientists know this. Paleoclimatology is one big part of climatology. But the outcome is the opposite - you should be more scared, since it shows that climate can change massively. That affects things like agriculture or sea level. What would you assume the sea level was, when those plants were alive? For example, with very quick search: "In general, world oceans were about 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) hi…
I just went looking for a map to see how different coastlines would look with a 200m sea level rise. It's, unsurprisingly, significant!! https://www.floodmap.net/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's difficult to imagine the extent and depth of suffering that humans will endure during the transition.
The Netherlands didn't endure much suffering. In fact, quite the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's difficult to imagine the extent and depth of suffering that humans will endure during the transition.
The Netherlands didn't endure much suffering. In fact, quite the opposite.
I am not a "denier", I can recognize that anthropomorphic activities are changing the climate over time and we're not prepared to deal with that. But this sort of article annoys me because "on record" represents a nanosecond of geologic time. There are mountains, and plant fossils [1] under the ice at Antartica, so at some point in the geologic record there was little to no ice at all! And no humans likely either, wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, I'd like to respond to this, " ... you should be more scared, " Can you reason to that position? Here is how I see it, and perhaps that will make my position more clear. I'm going to die (so are you). Every year, the probability that I'm going to die in the next year goes up bit by bit. I don't expect to read articles that continually harp on "look how close to death you are, are you sure you don't want to eat…
> All the science tells is that there is more energy available for things like hurricane and cyclones which are powered by the difference between surface and atmospheric temperatures Actually, they're powered ultimately by the difference between polar and tropical temperatures, correct? A cyclone is basically just a big thing that transports energy from the tropics to the poles to equalize an imbalance. And warming a…
No, vast majority of energy is from warm surface waters vs temperatures up into the troposphere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All the science tells is that there is more energy available for things like hurricane and cyclones which are powered by the difference between surface and atmospheric temperatures Actually, they're powered ultimately by the difference between polar and tropical temperatures, correct? A cyclone is basically just a big thing that transports energy from the tropics to the poles to equalize an imbalance. And warming a…
> Actually, they're powered ultimately by the difference between polar and tropical temperatures, correct? No, vast majority of energy is from warm surface waters vs temperatures up into the troposphere.