|
quote:We're at 13 years presently (2001-2013) and using the Met's own simulations, we'll be at 18 years with a ~0 trend in 2018. Your graph, grabbed from a website known for massaging numbers, is not credible. Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jul 24, 2013 |
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Using your Watt's Up graph, you mean. I see nothing that backs up your assertion in the report. In fact, as I posted before, they state: " The graph is from Climate Audit, and the numbers are from the Met's own website. Read the first comment response to this link (the genesis of the graph) for a complete reference to every number used. That also equips you with the opportunity to replicate the graph completely if you have the (free) software to do it. The graph was created for a different purpose than what we are debating -- to illustrate how a recent story from Nature magazine failed to show the Met's most recent model, an update that severely decreased the temperature forecast for the next 5 years. What you have bolded doesn't conflict with what I have posted. They expect that temperatures will be "maintained" and that a new record high "may be reached." These are consistent with the graph, and with my point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Using your Watt's Up graph, you mean. I see nothing that backs up your assertion in the report. In fact, as I posted before, they state: "The latest decadal forecast, issued in December 2012, is shown in Figure 1 as the set of blue lines, each representing an individual forecast from the 10-member ensemble. The results show that the Earth is expected to maintain the record warmth that has been observed over the last decade, and furthermore a substantial proportion of the forecasts show that new record global temperatures may be reached in the next 5 years." Maintaining is not the same as increasing. The part you bolded seems consistent with a definition of plateau to me. The phrase "maintain the record warmth" is also very different from "maintain the current warming". One implies an upwards trend, the other doesn't. Arkane was not being out of order to point out to someone claiming that everything is getting worse and quicker was ignoring the current state of affairs, however that state of affairs has come about I don't know if anyone saw the Sunday Politics show (UK) the other day with Ed Davey the UK environment minister on. It was a lively affair as you'd hope. The interviewer, Andrew Neil posted quite a long blog on the little twitter furore that happened afterwards http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23405202
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
The thing is everything is getting worse and getting quicker. Just because you can't see that clearly when you look at the past 10 years on their own and actually have to appreciate a larger data set doesn't mean it isn't true. Arkane's arguments (he's been making the same ones for years) have been debunked so many times on these forums he's usually instantly probated for even posting in this thread (in fact, you can go back through it and read his earlier posts/probations in this thread). I'm not really sure what changed about that policy but  what can you do other than post this image The climate system is an incredible complex and slow to react system. You aren't going to make any sort of meaningful argument regarding it if you're only looking at ten years of data. That sort of selective cherry picking of data should be throwing major red flags in your brain when you see it shared. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jul 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
The North Pole is now a lake. quote:Instead of snow and ice whirling on the wind, a foot-deep aquamarine lake now sloshes around a webcam stationed at the North Pole. The meltwater lake started forming July 13, following two weeks of warm weather in the high Arctic. In early July, temperatures were 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) higher than average over much of the Arctic Ocean, according to the National Snow & Ice Data Center. We did it! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
The camera drifted and was hundreds of miles away from the North Pole when that picture was taken. Time-lapse video and explanation from Andrew Revkin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nFXYRwXHw4
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:The thing is everything is getting worse and getting quicker. Just because you can't see that clearly when you look at the past 10 years on their own and actually have to appreciate a larger data set doesn't mean it isn't true. Arkane's arguments (he's been making the same ones for years) have been debunked so many times on these forums he's usually instantly probated for even posting in this thread (in fact, you can go back through it and read his earlier posts/probations in this thread). I'm not really sure what changed about that policy but Even if you look at a larger dataset, you can't claim that things are getting worse and quicker if the last 13 years have been a plateau. Has there been a 13 year plateau since the modern age of AGW "started"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 12:41
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Even if you look at a larger dataset, you can't claim that things are getting worse and quicker if the last 13 years have been a plateau. Has there been a 13 year plateau since the modern age of AGW "started" Yes you can. The nature of the climate system is that there's a large amount of natural variation. That's why you don't try to extrapolate any real information regarding the climate system as a whole based on thirteen years of selective data. "Global warming", despite the name, is not just about the average land temperatures going up. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...sed_melting.ogv Here's a video of Greenland's melting over the past decade. Where's the plateau?  Where's the plateau? Where's the plateau?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_impacts_of_climate_change Go find some more plateau's for me a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
I found this on Andrew Revkins blog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Even if you look at a larger dataset, you can't claim that things are getting worse and quicker if the last 13 years have been a plateau. Has there been a 13 year plateau since the modern age of AGW "started" Sure you can, there can be changes occurring while temperature stays the same: see also ice melting in a glass of water.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Maintaining is not the same as increasing. The part you bolded seems consistent with a definition of plateau to me. The phrase "maintain the record warmth" is also very different from "maintain the current warming". One implies an upwards trend, the other doesn't. Meanwhile the oceans are absorbing CO2 and becoming more and more acidic. Countries and cities are already sinking. I'm not exactly sure why people have such a bone to pick with climate change science despite all the evidence. Fossil fuels do enough damage polluting the air,killing 50,000 in the US a year, oil and natural gas companies are bloodthirsty, hydraulic fracking pollutes the air and water, and there are much more efficient and powerful sources of energy out there. Blackbird Fly fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Jul 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 09:00
|
|
|
Blackbird Fly posted:It seems like you are missing the forest for the trees. If there is a plateau for a couple years and then a continuing increase for the other couple hundred, the plateau becomes irrelevant. It's not a couple of years though, it's over a decade. A decade in which CO2 emissions have shot up. Yes I know that the ocean may be absorbing all the heat, but that's very new and just goes to show how unreliable all the models where. Everyone was so confident, the science was settled except whoops we forgot about the ocean. It's not ridiculous to question whether we should be expending a huge amount of our money and resources on cutting c02 emissions based on models that have to be constantly added to to make the come close to being accurate. Money and time that in my opinion could be better spent, lowering pollution, preserving rainforests, helping poor countries etc. I realise that's as much a pipe dream as cutting CO2 but that's what we should be aiming for. It's a tough one for me climate change, because I like reading up on all the science about everything and this is really the only area where I stray away from what is the scientific consensus. I just don't find the science convincing enough to rule out the questions raised by the deniers. I'm settled in the non catastrophic GW camp for the moment. I also sense a lot of hype and politics whenever I read about global warming, from both sides. The confidence just doesn't match up with the predictions or the results
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 11:04
|
|
|
I really don't see a conflict between reducing pollution and lowering CO2 emissions at all. We're not choosing one over the other, especially since we aren't spending the money on lowering CO2 emissions in any meaningful way. Nor are we exerting much of our resources on rainforest preservation or poverty reduction. That's just a non-choice, because right now it's none of the above. Regardless of whether or not you believe in serious climate change the cost of doing nothing and it turning out to be worse than you think is much more catastrophic than doing something now and climate change turning out to be not so terrible. Dreylad fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Jul 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:C02 CO2 as in, Carbon dioxide, as in a carbon atom & 2 oxygen atoms. Cyanophyta fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Jul 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Cyanophyta posted:CO2 as in, Carbon dioxide, as in a carbon atom & 2 oxygen atoms. Oh I see! it's carbon dioxide! well in that case I change my stance, the science all makes sense now! Just kidding, I just didn't know how to do little "2"'s now I do Dreylad posted:I really don't see a conflict between reducing pollution and lowering C02 emissions at all. We're not choosing one over the other, especially since we aren't spending the money on lowering C02 emissions in any meaningful way. Nor are we exerting much of our resources on rainforest preservation or poverty reduction. That's just a non-choice, because right now it's none of the above. For starters I said that both were pipedreams so we are in conflict there. reducing CO2 (see what I did there) and saving the environment aren't one and the same, there's water pollution, chemical waste, deforestation etc. The argument that it's a choice between doing nothing and going all in isn't a very good one. You have to weigh things up. What if all the money spent on subsidising the green industries was pumped into scientific research on better energy production, or recycling technologies. We're asking developing nations to not progress and build power stations. Stay in your hut or the world will end. What about the cost to their lives if it turns out that GW models predict everything happening way to fast and not as bad. Another few generations of Africans living in poverty without power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:We're asking developing nations to not progress and build power stations. Stay in your hut or the world will end. What about the cost to their lives if it turns out that GW models predict everything happening way to fast and not as bad. Another few generations of Africans living in poverty without power. What a beautiful strawman you've crafted. Also, the reason he posted that wasn't because of the little 2 it's because you're writing the number 0 instead of the letter O which makes absolutely no sense. And honestly, it's a hilarious mistake. Illuminti posted:What if all the money spent on subsidising the green industries was pumped into scientific research on better energy production, or recycling technologies. What if science behaved like you pretend it does and we could just adjust the sliders of our spending and make technology magically happen. Scientific advancement isn't a game of Civilization. We should be investing in all of these things and there's absolutely no reason not to. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jul 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Yes I know that the ocean may be absorbing all the heat, but that's very new and just goes to show how unreliable all the models where. Everyone was so confident, the science was settled except whoops we forgot about the ocean. Isn't this like someone telling you your loungeroom was on fire, but because actually your loungeroom AND your kitchen were on fire, you call into question the existence of the fire itself and let the house burn down while waiting for a more accurate second opinion? If there's demonstrably a fire and you can tell because you've got reliable photographic records of times when your house wasn't on fire, then it's worth the expense of calling the firemen, regardless of how bad you think the fire will get!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Well, it's not like we live in the ocean, who cares if it gets hotter Take that liberals
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
In the last 6 years, there have been 5 times when the arctic sea ice minimum has been 2 standard deviations below average, something which should occur only 5% of the time if it were merely random. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ C zero two is having an effect on the environment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Oh I see! it's carbon dioxide! well in that case I change my stance, the science all makes sense now! My issue was more with the 0 instead of O  , thought you could both use a friendly reminder what it actually stands for!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Ronald Nixon posted:Isn't this like someone telling you your loungeroom was on fire, but because actually your loungeroom AND your kitchen were on fire, you call into question the existence of the fire itself and let the house burn down while waiting for a more accurate second opinion? If you want to use a house metaphor, it's actually like sitting in your house watching the temperature gauge go up, assuming there is a massive fire, spending a load of money calling out the fire brigade and getting a helicopter to dump water on your house, knocking down all the neighbouring houses and then realising you left the heating on full blast on a hot day and the neighbours are having a bonfire. If the timer turned the oven off and the wind started blowing smoke from the bonfire the other way, you'd still be digging trenches around your house to stop the spread claiming it had all been sucked into the walls until it was going to explode, rather than question the accuracy of the fire model. fermun posted:In the last 6 years, there have been 5 times when the arctic sea ice minimum has been 2 standard deviations below average, something which should occur only 5% of the time if it were merely random. I don't think anyone is claiming it's not actually getting hotter and the climate is changing, the question is how much of that effect humans are causing and whether we can realistically do anything to stop it. If the earth is getting hotter for whatever reason, then low seas ice is what you'd expect. It doesn't prove that CO2 is causing it, especially as the much lauded models predicting the effect of it on the atmosphere have consistently not been accurate and failed to predict over a decade of climate. Cyanophyta posted:My issue was more with the 0 instead of O Thanks you for not being a complete dick about about it  I'm sorry my slip of the fingers gave Fermun and a lovely poster a wonderfully sneering feeling of superiority. It's exactly that kind of dickish attitude that entrenches people opinions, although I try to largely ignore it. I'll wait for the response that they're allowed to be dicks because I am LITERALLY killing people. Well you can hunt me down when we're all roving the planet in cannibal gangs in 50 degree heat
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:Thanks you for not being a complete dick about about it I have no feeling of superiority, I just think you're another idiot who's posting about things he knows nothing about using arguments we've all seen for years. Normally posting such poo poo in this thread is probatable but since that has more or less gone out the window I wouldn't expect some kind of warm welcoming for "well, if temperatures haven't gone up in the past 12 years...". Why don't you actually address the content of my post instead of tuning it out because someone took a tone with you that you don't like. You're not killing anybody, and regardless of how many Mad Max related strawmen you build, ultimately you're just another idiot running his mouth about things you have no qualifications or business doing so. Don't worry, I'm stupid too. I don't know everything and this thread is a good place to learn. But don't come in here with the latest denialist argument, you're just wasting your time. That debate was settled over a decade ago in the scientific community, you're just going to have to get over that before you start trying to have an actual discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
I can see where Illuminti is coming from. When you watch or read the news all you ever hear about with climate change is what the models are showing. The problem with this is that the basis for global warming is physics and history. I could type a bunch of words here and try to explain this myself but I fear I would do it poorly. I suggest reading these links to gain a better understanding of how our earth functions. As a side note you need to realize models don't have all the data to make a perfect model. We still don't have anything measuring Aerosols, we can only take temperature measurements of the ocean from certain depths and many other variables have poor data available. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/ http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/ Edit: For the lazy two quotes. Past Climates on Earth posted:Correlations such as these are difficult to interpret. It is hard to unravel the chain of cause and effect when a poorly understood feedback process is at play. Additional evidence for these processes are sought. As we shall soon discuss, useful additional evidence comes from a study of changes in the Earth's orbit. However, once thing is certain, as discussed in previous lectures -- it is simple physics that as the concentrations of heat-trapping gases like CO2 and methane increase in the atmosphere, more heat is trapped next to the surface of the Earth and the temperature of the earth's atmosphere and oceans warms. Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance posted:heat absorbed by planet = (1 - a) πR2So Tanreall fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jul 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Lemme get this straight Illuminti, are you suggesting there isn't enough evidence to conclude CO2 has a positive impact on temperature trends? Because it sounds like that's what you're suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
I don't know if he's read the thread long enough to know that putting "we don't know how much warming humans are causing" anywhere near the words climate science without a strong caveat that he's sure there's been a recognizable forcing on temperatures by anthropogenic carbon sources since the industrial revolution. I mean, the science is very confident about that, they might just not fully understand what has happened over the past decade in land temperatures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:I don't think anyone is claiming it's not actually getting hotter and the climate is changing, the question is how much of that effect humans are causing and whether we can realistically do anything to stop it. If the earth is getting hotter for whatever reason, then low seas ice is what you'd expect. It doesn't prove that CO2 is causing it, especially as the much lauded models predicting the effect of it on the atmosphere have consistently not been accurate and failed to predict over a decade of climate. Without humans the earth would be cooling. Sea ice and glaciers would be advancing and a possible ice age would be in the cards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:Without humans the earth would be cooling. Sea ice and glaciers would be advancing and a possible ice age would be in the cards. Whether or not that's true is not relevant; if there were no humans then there would be nobody to suffer any negative consequences and nobody to blame. If humans had not caused climate change and an ice age did appear to be approaching, then we would have concerns about global cooling (whether anthropogenic or not), just as we are concerned about the fact of anthropogenic global warming. We could have been fine if the climate had only warmed to the point where it was, say, 30 years ago, and if it were to stay in that exact climate situation forever, preventing a new ice age and avoiding problematic warming, but that is not the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Whether or not that's true is not relevant; if there were no humans then there would be nobody to suffer any negative consequences and nobody to blame. I don't really understand the point of your post and you totally missed mine. He said "the question is how much of that effect humans are causing". My point was humans are the sole cause of this warming. We have beat out the natural forcing that should be cooling the planet and are warming it instead. Tanreall fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jul 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Lemme get this straight Illuminti, are you suggesting there isn't enough evidence to conclude CO2 has a positive impact on temperature trends? Because it sounds like that's what you're suggesting. He or she is progressing through a series of named arguments, starting with that one. Then moving to, 'we can't tell the effect accurately, so we can't respond', 'since that is the case, aren't there better things to focus on?', 'yes clearly there is an effect, but we don't know the extent of the human causes'. Or something along these lines. It's a pretty well trodden path and I am sure others have done a better job of naming it. For myself, I agree that there are many things to be addressed about the global condition. Sadly it is not an either/or equation, though it might be more comforting if it were. In the case of all these options of things to work on I ask myself several questions. Where is the leverage? This explains one way of thinking about that: http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points This is one version of the list: Places to Intervene in a System (in increasing order of effectiveness) 9. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards) 8. Regulating negative feedback loops 7. Driving positive feedback loops 6. Material flows and nodes of material intersection 5. Information flows 4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints) 3. The distribution of power over the rules of the system 2. The goals of the system 1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system—its goals, power structure, rules, its culture—arises. This little hierarchy can also be used to locate arguments and historical interventions. I also ask myself about my own ground of being and action. For instance, yes there are all these different areas to work. Am I more involved and organized myself and in community to address these things or in the production of a consumer lifestyle? If and when the answer is the latter, then my arguments about the 'costs' of addressing some condition, such as climate effects, become disingenuous and I must then work on change. When I engage that work where I live, I also actively ask the question 'what do we want to conserve?' Another rubric I bounce the arguments up against is based on the premise that to the extent I am self-identified with something such as a life of 'being as having', self as consumer, etc. any shift from that involves an identity crisis. The Kubler-Ross death and dying process can be used loosely to navigate something about that. Shock/Denial- this isn't happening Anger- in which I actively ignore my own participation and responsibility in the matter and blame some 'other' for the condition Bargaining- in which I posit arguments primarily intended to keep my identity in tact, e.g. Free market and technological miracles in that context Depression- in which I despair of anything 'I' can do. This usually involves isolation, rather than community, which is one of the common strategies used in the attempt to avoid existential crisis Acceptance- in which I may come to accept a horrific circumstance such that my living and action can begin to correspond to that authentically Transformation- in which I move beyond the conceptual and engage in transformative action that dialectically integrates theory and practice Of course to do these things means radically altering your life, individually and communally. For myself, to look into this I engaged in progressive fasting from 'consumerism', not as a solution, but rather as an expirement to understand the degree of my identity, vested interest and participation. You can categorize participation around major systems such as: water, food, media, energy, built environment, transportation, consumer goods, 'waste', etc. The intent is not deprivation or to go live in a cave. The intent is to reveal to myself my actual condition. Food for instance, might involve literal fasting, but also might involve living some version of the '100 mile diet' for a time. Media is an interesting one. Turn off all you media for a week. What usually happens is that all the asserted necessities and apparent impossibilities immediately come up. This begins to inform you about your actual condition and investment, very directly. The asserted necessity and impossibility become a design parameter. It is not a moral excercise in asceticism. It can be very good for revealing the gap I might have between espoused models and lived models. I have used this process in high schools, universities and local communities. Week 1: collectively research the current condition in one of these areas. Teach one another about that. Week 2: design and enact a fast. Turn off your media. Don't use a car. Etc. Week 3: Stop and reflect with the disposition of realigning your life with respect to what you have encountered. Make a simple design. Live that yourself and in community. There is one thing I often wonder about. What level of 'feedback' is required? What would it take for 'you' to be persuaded of something that was currently inconsistent with your held and enacted paradigm. Personally I feel the change taking place is much larger than climate effects and feedback. For me those are symptomatic and represent the most easily perceived 'feedback' associated with an actively produced change in geological era on the planet. Another way to ask this is, what level of crisis in the world would be sufficient to inspire action for you, particularly if that action required a significant reorganization of your personal and communal identity and life? Sogol fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jul 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:I don't really understand the point of your post and you totally missed mine. This may be true. I think that I somehow did not see what you had quoted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Illuminti posted:It's a tough one for me climate change, because I like reading up on all the science about everything and this is really the only area where I stray away from what is the scientific consensus. I just don't find the science convincing enough to rule out the questions raised by the deniers. I'm settled in the non catastrophic GW camp for the moment. I also sense a lot of hype and politics whenever I read about global warming, from both sides. The confidence just doesn't match up with the predictions or the results There's a problem with this. Saying this implies you actually read up on and understand what is being published in the primary, peer-reviewed literature regarding climate studies, and I doubt this is actually the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
It's almost like saying "I went to medschool but I don't think medicine actually works, so I'm going to pray for God to fix my concussion then go take a nap"
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
Sogol posted:He or she is progressing through a series of named arguments, starting with that one. Then moving to, 'we can't tell the effect accurately, so we can't respond', 'since that is the case, aren't there better things to focus on?', 'yes clearly there is an effect, but we don't know the extent of the human causes'. Or something along these lines. It's a pretty well trodden path and I am sure others have done a better job of naming it. Nice post I've been looking for good sources on human organization recently, and I'll definitely check out your links on system theory, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's almost like saying "I went to medschool but I don't think medicine actually works, so I'm going to pray for God to fix my concussion then go take a nap"
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
What I want to know is what I should do to survive the next 30 years so I can live to be 50. Seems dumb to stockpile stuff, if society collapses, someone will probably just kill me and steal it (especially because I'm a weak lady person.) So, what's a middle class white American to do? I don't bother to ask about people of poorer nations because it's too depressing to contemplate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:What I want to know is what I should do to survive the next 30 years so I can live to be 50. Seems dumb to stockpile stuff, if society collapses, someone will probably just kill me and steal it (especially because I'm a weak lady person.) So, what's a middle class white American to do? I haven't followed this thread too closely in a while, but I'm pretty sure even the worst feasible projections wouldn't mean TOO much to first-worlders within the next 30 years, or even in our own lifetimes. The third world and a generation or two down, though, could get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
I guess maybe expect a lot of global south defaulting on debt in the hopes that controlling their own currency and policies will help to mitigate the damage. Clothes at the gap might become more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Maybe also don't live in Miami or New Orleans. It may not get bad in places like that before 2050, but you're gonna be able to see bad from there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 02:35
|
|
|
It won't be horrible, but by then long-term property investments in those cities should be completely halted, and if the government is sensible they will be giving people incentives to move away. Those places will be worse off then Detroit is today, and everyone will know that there isn't any hope of recovery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:I haven't followed this thread too closely in a while, but I'm pretty sure even the worst feasible projections wouldn't mean TOO much to first-worlders within the next 30 years, or even in our own lifetimes. The third world and a generation or two down, though, could get hosed. Mid-range projections for drought posted in this thread are calling for dustbowlification of about half of agriculturally productive land in North America by 2050. That's going to mean a lot to everyone if it comes to pass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 03:10
|
|
