5 ms·

I am terrified. Should I be?

std_throwaway 10y ago
No, that would lead to paralysis. Learn to live in a world where climate change is happening and adjust accordingly. There is no way going back now. The party is coming to an end. We must go forward. You don't have to solve this problem in one day by yourself. You probably cannot really "solve" it at all. It's time to let go of things we cannot save and hold on to those which grow valuable in the future.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  I really resonate with this comment. The best way to 'deal' with climate change on an individual level is to always vote for folks who are trying to rein it in, to live your life with a minimal carbon footprint, and to create plans for larger, more intense weather events.
  - SamReidHughes 10y ago
    Even the high end of predictions aren't expecting an increase in intense weather events bigger than what you might get if you were a bit unlucky over the next century.
    - pg314 10y ago
      Any citations for that? Why would insurance companies like Munich Re be studying and preparing for climate change then [1]? [1] https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/index.html https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/index...
      - SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Apparently they've been doing it for "more than 40 years." I'm guessing it's part of the general business of being an insurance company.
      - PeterisP 10y ago
        A large reinsurer has to evaluate trends in weather and the associated risks of e.g. storm damage, as for them every percentage point is meaningful. However, you can treat them as an information source about risk - if there would be a significant increase in likelihood of extreme weather, then you'd see it reflected in the insurance rates, and if not - well, they have done the homework and are betting literal billions that the worry is just an exaggeration for now. If the insurance rates aren't doubling, then the risks haven't doubled for sure.
    - akiselev 10y ago
      Love that spin. The low end of predictions is that the most stable of ecosystems will regularly experience the extreme weather previously reserved for "once-in-a-century" events in the most volatile regions. On the "high-end" is a drastic change in the Earth's shape due to gravity with a meter+ of sea level rise around the equator, runaway exponential heating feedback loops triggered in Siberia and like half the ocean floor, and the depletion of almost all potable fresh water currently supplying a population of over 7 billion. But yeah, if "unlucky over the next century" means the sun will go supernova, we're f-ing peachy!
      - SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Wrong. The low end is that extreme weather events get less frequent [1]. The high end is that they get more frequent -- but the amount is such that you're not going to get hit with more extreme weather over the next century than what you would get if you were a bit unlucky. Your second paragraph isn't talking about weather events at all. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-1.html https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-...
        pg314 10y ago
        As far as I can tell the link you provide argues exactly the opposite of what you're saying: > In a warmer future climate, there will be an increased risk of more intense, more frequent and longer-lasting heat waves. > In a warmer future climate, most Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models project increased summer dryness and winter wetness in most parts of the northern middle and high latitudes. Summer dryness indicates a greater risk of drought. Along with the risk of drying, there is an increased chance of intense precipitation and flooding due to the greater water-holding capacity of a warmer atmosphere. > In concert with the results for increased extremes of intense precipitation, even if the wind strength of storms in a future climate did not change, there would be an increase in extreme rainfall intensity. > There is evidence from modelling studies that future tropical cyclones could become more severe, with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. Studies suggest that such changes may already be underway; there are indications that the average number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year has increased over the past 30 years. Some modelling studies have projected a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones globally due to the increased stability of the tropical troposphere in a warmer climate, characterised by fewer weak storms and greater numbers of intense storms. A number of modelling studies have also projected a general tendency for more intense but fewer storms outside the tropics, with a tendency towards more extreme wind events and higher ocean waves in several regions in association with those deepened cyclones. How do you get from that to your statement: 'The low end is that extreme weather events get less frequent'? You are also simply repeating your assertion 'but the amount is such that you're not going to get hit with more extreme weather over the next century than what you would get if you were a bit unlucky', citing no evidence.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
taneq 10y ago
Buy shares in houseboat companies. Short sell coastal property.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- pg314 10y ago
  You are likely to loose your shirt short-selling coastal property. For short-selling to be profitable, what you are short-selling should decrease in value, and do so rather quickly. The reason is that in the mean time you are required to reimburse the person you're borrowing the asset from for the revenue he would have had, had he held on to it. In the case of property that is the rental revenue. Time works against you when short-selling. Home prices in flood-prone areas are still rising (albeit slower than elsewhere) in the US [1]. At some point they will go down, but time your short-selling wrong, and you will loose money. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-coastal-real-estate.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-co...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
tajen 10y ago
I often wonder what we'll die of. Direct consequence of global warming like flooding, tornado, or heat wave? A worldwide epidemic? Will wealth be relevant in saving us from mass famines? A more indirect way such as massive riots caused by, say, the global disorganization of wealth? A global methane event, bursting out of the oceans, and burning the whole atmosphere? Or simply Trump deciding that global warming can only be dodged by erasing half of human activities, killing 4bn people with some atomic bomb, "for the survival of the rest"? I also wonder what will remain of our cities. Will scavenger humans haunt them for the next thousand years? How fast will they decay?
- throwaway29292 10y ago
  Probably not direct consequences, more indirect ones like riots. And if things get that bad, then maybe erasing half or 75% human activities WOULD be the only way, don't need a Trump to declare that.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    Probably not any of that at all. We will probably die of all the same old boring causes: heart disease, cancer, dementia and Alzheimer's.
- gd1 10y ago
  If you think global warming has any proven connection to tornadoes, you're most likely to die from being a dribbling fucking retard.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Please read up on the scientific consensus. No respectable scientist believes that a meter or 2 of sea level rise over the next 200 years is going to literally cause the world to end. Read the science. Go with the facts. Not the fake consequences that no scientist believes is going to happen.
  - scarmig 10y ago
    Yes. No one believes the world is going to end. The scientific consensus is trillions of dollars in annual damages globally along with plausibly millions of lives lost. No big deal.
stale2002 10y ago
.
- scarmig 10y ago
  I really don't get how you're blithely writing off 2 meters of sea level rise. Do you have any clue just how much value that'd destroy? Why do you value the lives of Bengalis living in low elevation areas so much less than your right to drive a gas guzzler cheaply?

No, that would lead to paralysis. Learn to live in a world where climate change is happening and adjust accordingly. There is no way going back now. The party is coming to an end. We must go forward. You don't have to solve this problem in one day by yourself. You probably cannot really "solve" it at all. It's time to let go of things we cannot save and hold on to those which grow valuable in the future.

ChuckMcM 10y ago
I really resonate with this comment. The best way to 'deal' with climate change on an individual level is to always vote for folks who are trying to rein it in, to live your life with a minimal carbon footprint, and to create plans for larger, more intense weather events.
- SamReidHughes 10y ago
  Even the high end of predictions aren't expecting an increase in intense weather events bigger than what you might get if you were a bit unlucky over the next century.
  - pg314 10y ago
    Any citations for that? Why would insurance companies like Munich Re be studying and preparing for climate change then [1]? [1] https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/index.html https://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate-change/index...
    - SamReidHughes 10y ago
      Apparently they've been doing it for "more than 40 years." I'm guessing it's part of the general business of being an insurance company.
    - PeterisP 10y ago
      A large reinsurer has to evaluate trends in weather and the associated risks of e.g. storm damage, as for them every percentage point is meaningful. However, you can treat them as an information source about risk - if there would be a significant increase in likelihood of extreme weather, then you'd see it reflected in the insurance rates, and if not - well, they have done the homework and are betting literal billions that the worry is just an exaggeration for now. If the insurance rates aren't doubling, then the risks haven't doubled for sure.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    Love that spin. The low end of predictions is that the most stable of ecosystems will regularly experience the extreme weather previously reserved for "once-in-a-century" events in the most volatile regions. On the "high-end" is a drastic change in the Earth's shape due to gravity with a meter+ of sea level rise around the equator, runaway exponential heating feedback loops triggered in Siberia and like half the ocean floor, and the depletion of almost all potable fresh water currently supplying a population of over 7 billion. But yeah, if "unlucky over the next century" means the sun will go supernova, we're f-ing peachy!
    - SamReidHughes 10y ago
      Wrong. The low end is that extreme weather events get less frequent [1]. The high end is that they get more frequent -- but the amount is such that you're not going to get hit with more extreme weather over the next century than what you would get if you were a bit unlucky. Your second paragraph isn't talking about weather events at all. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-1.html https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-...
      - pg314 10y ago
        As far as I can tell the link you provide argues exactly the opposite of what you're saying: > In a warmer future climate, there will be an increased risk of more intense, more frequent and longer-lasting heat waves. > In a warmer future climate, most Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models project increased summer dryness and winter wetness in most parts of the northern middle and high latitudes. Summer dryness indicates a greater risk of drought. Along with the risk of drying, there is an increased chance of intense precipitation and flooding due to the greater water-holding capacity of a warmer atmosphere. > In concert with the results for increased extremes of intense precipitation, even if the wind strength of storms in a future climate did not change, there would be an increase in extreme rainfall intensity. > There is evidence from modelling studies that future tropical cyclones could become more severe, with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. Studies suggest that such changes may already be underway; there are indications that the average number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year has increased over the past 30 years. Some modelling studies have projected a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones globally due to the increased stability of the tropical troposphere in a warmer climate, characterised by fewer weak storms and greater numbers of intense storms. A number of modelling studies have also projected a general tendency for more intense but fewer storms outside the tropics, with a tendency towards more extreme wind events and higher ocean waves in several regions in association with those deepened cyclones. How do you get from that to your statement: 'The low end is that extreme weather events get less frequent'? You are also simply repeating your assertion 'but the amount is such that you're not going to get hit with more extreme weather over the next century than what you would get if you were a bit unlucky', citing no evidence.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

taneq 10y ago

Buy shares in houseboat companies. Short sell coastal property.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pg314 10y ago
You are likely to loose your shirt short-selling coastal property. For short-selling to be profitable, what you are short-selling should decrease in value, and do so rather quickly. The reason is that in the mean time you are required to reimburse the person you're borrowing the asset from for the revenue he would have had, had he held on to it. In the case of property that is the rental revenue. Time works against you when short-selling. Home prices in flood-prone areas are still rising (albeit slower than elsewhere) in the US [1]. At some point they will go down, but time your short-selling wrong, and you will loose money. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-coastal-real-estate.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-co...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

tajen 10y ago

I often wonder what we'll die of. Direct consequence of global warming like flooding, tornado, or heat wave? A worldwide epidemic? Will wealth be relevant in saving us from mass famines? A more indirect way such as massive riots caused by, say, the global disorganization of wealth? A global methane event, bursting out of the oceans, and burning the whole atmosphere? Or simply Trump deciding that global warming can only be dodged by erasing half of human activities, killing 4bn people with some atomic bomb, "for the survival of the rest"? I also wonder what will remain of our cities. Will scavenger humans haunt them for the next thousand years? How fast will they decay?

throwaway29292 10y ago
Probably not direct consequences, more indirect ones like riots. And if things get that bad, then maybe erasing half or 75% human activities WOULD be the only way, don't need a Trump to declare that.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Probably not any of that at all. We will probably die of all the same old boring causes: heart disease, cancer, dementia and Alzheimer's.
gd1 10y ago
If you think global warming has any proven connection to tornadoes, you're most likely to die from being a dribbling fucking retard.
stale2002 10y ago
Please read up on the scientific consensus. No respectable scientist believes that a meter or 2 of sea level rise over the next 200 years is going to literally cause the world to end. Read the science. Go with the facts. Not the fake consequences that no scientist believes is going to happen.
- scarmig 10y ago
  Yes. No one believes the world is going to end. The scientific consensus is trillions of dollars in annual damages globally along with plausibly millions of lives lost. No big deal.

stale2002 10y ago

scarmig 10y ago
I really don't get how you're blithely writing off 2 meters of sea level rise. Do you have any clue just how much value that'd destroy? Why do you value the lives of Bengalis living in low elevation areas so much less than your right to drive a gas guzzler cheaply?