4 ms·

I think you're stretching the analogy a bit too far there... We know that increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 will result in higher temperatures (the mechanis

I think you're stretching the analogy a bit too far there... We know that increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 will result in higher temperatures (the mechanism is well understood, and the IPCC models have done a good job of predicting that over the past couple decades), we also know rising temperatures will result in rising sea levels (again, we have empirically observed this happening at rates consistent with our understanding of the mechanism). From there it's just math to figure out how much coastal land will be inundated over the coming century (which is just one of many implications of climate change). You are suggesting various ways in which that might not happen, with no evidence supporting them, from the perspective of someone who doesn't have much of an understanding of climate science. Do you think it is more likely that you have outsmarted 97% of climate scientists, or that the experts are more likely to know what they're talking about than you are?

davidp 10y ago
Strategy tip: Don't tell him to know his place and listen to the enlightened; send him the next set of links that will satisfy and maybe further stimulate his curiosity. Without those links, your last paragraph is really a statement about your own approach to the problem, with a little condescension thrown in for his failure to follow the same pattern. It's counterproductive to your own goal of persuasion. In any scientific endeavor (not just climate change), when a skeptic takes the time to engage, the response should be data, not appeal to authority. Put differently, environmental scientists have a credibility gap in some segments of the populace, and it isn't possible to fix any credibility gap through peer pressure. You can only offer evidence, tailored where possible to the listener's level of interest and sophistication.
- embersdev 10y ago
  This is probably the best advice I have ever seen on this topic.
refurb 10y ago
the IPCC models have done a good job of predicting that over the past couple decades That's not my understanding. We had a warming "pause" from 2000 to 2010 (approximately). That was certainly not predicted. Then scientists went back to look for an explanation of the "pause". Ocean temperature data was then incoporated, other data adjusted and the "pause" was no more. I would characterize the climate modelling as constantly evolving. We don't have it nailed yet.
- JshWright 10y ago
  The total energy trapped in the system was accurately predicted. The amount of heat trapped in the ocean was not so accurately predicted. The part that matters was pretty spot on. Even more importantly, the net effects (sea level rise, etc) were well within the predicted range.
  - refurb 10y ago
    My understanding is that there is still a lot of disagreement about the adjusted data and whether it truly explains the pause.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Yes, it's not settled. I suspect that the huge ramp up in SOx and particulate emissions from China played an important role. And now that China is cleaning up, reducing dependence on coal, and exporting less, the rate of global temperature increase will keep increasing.
mcbits 10y ago
A more realistic analogy would be if the engineer said it's very likely that the California coast will be hit with an earthquake sometime in the next 100 years, but we have no idea when, which city, or how severe it will be. The safe thing to do would be to stop building things there altogether, but we could also try raising taxes and adding building regulations, making it impossibly expensive to live and work there. Surely that will stop people from building and moving there. 97% of engineers agree that earthquakes can be troubling.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mcbits 10y ago
  Someone replied to me and deleted it, and I don't want to waste the time I spent writing a response, so here it is: No, that wasn't my claim. If I have a claim, it's that, instead of simply moving away, people keep building up an active seismic fault that's likely to suffer a catastrophic earthquake in the near future. Even high taxes (some of which funded the policy piece you cited) and massively increased costs of construction (such as proposed in the policy piece you cited) aren't incentive enough to stop. This aspect of human behavior is worth remembering when someone suggests similar "incentives" to address climate change. It's trying to incentivize the same mindset that would rather build cities out of springs and pendulums than move to stable land. We should face the reality that humans will eventually deal with the negative side of climate change using (not so?) metaphorical springs, levers, stilts, and who-knows-what, and it will be okay. I don't click Forbes links, but from the URL it looks like it's about a hoax bill that was proposed for PR purposes. Not interested.
shouldbworking 10y ago
I'm not arguing about higher sea level, temperatures, or CO2 levels. I fully believe that all of these are going up. I think it's unrealistic to believe we can get the whole planet to reduce CO2 emission, so we should stop spending so much effort on it and find other solutions. I also doubt how much rising sea level will actually hurt humanity. Even in the worst case scenario were talking about an inch or two a year. This is slow enough to easily build a wall, dredge to raise up land, or move buildings away from rising waters. Besides, who puts buildings five feet above the water? The vast majority of buildings would just flood more often. It's not like buildings on the coast don't already get hit by cyclones.
- pas 10y ago
  > I think it's unrealistic to believe we can get the whole planet to reduce CO2 emission Why? The problem with fossil fuels - especially coal, isn't "just CO2", it's all the ash that is killing people. The problems with oil extraction isn't just the CO2 at the end, it's all the crude and junk stuff going (bunker oil), and the political power of the oil lobby, and how dictatorships are financed by these resources. Sure, these are the factors that make it hard to change, even "locally", within the US. > cyclones Yes, and just estimate the cost of a lot more cyclones. It turns out to be a lot more than switching to non-fossil stuff. And that's why a lot of people think that it's not rational to try to continue the consumption of fossil fuels (in a way that leads to CO2 emissions).

davidp 10y ago

Strategy tip: Don't tell him to know his place and listen to the enlightened; send him the next set of links that will satisfy and maybe further stimulate his curiosity. Without those links, your last paragraph is really a statement about your own approach to the problem, with a little condescension thrown in for his failure to follow the same pattern. It's counterproductive to your own goal of persuasion. In any scientific endeavor (not just climate change), when a skeptic takes the time to engage, the response should be data, not appeal to authority. Put differently, environmental scientists have a credibility gap in some segments of the populace, and it isn't possible to fix any credibility gap through peer pressure. You can only offer evidence, tailored where possible to the listener's level of interest and sophistication.

embersdev 10y ago
This is probably the best advice I have ever seen on this topic.

refurb 10y ago

the IPCC models have done a good job of predicting that over the past couple decades That's not my understanding. We had a warming "pause" from 2000 to 2010 (approximately). That was certainly not predicted. Then scientists went back to look for an explanation of the "pause". Ocean temperature data was then incoporated, other data adjusted and the "pause" was no more. I would characterize the climate modelling as constantly evolving. We don't have it nailed yet.

JshWright 10y ago
The total energy trapped in the system was accurately predicted. The amount of heat trapped in the ocean was not so accurately predicted. The part that matters was pretty spot on. Even more importantly, the net effects (sea level rise, etc) were well within the predicted range.
- refurb 10y ago
  My understanding is that there is still a lot of disagreement about the adjusted data and whether it truly explains the pause.
mirimir 10y ago
Yes, it's not settled. I suspect that the huge ramp up in SOx and particulate emissions from China played an important role. And now that China is cleaning up, reducing dependence on coal, and exporting less, the rate of global temperature increase will keep increasing.

mcbits 10y ago

A more realistic analogy would be if the engineer said it's very likely that the California coast will be hit with an earthquake sometime in the next 100 years, but we have no idea when, which city, or how severe it will be. The safe thing to do would be to stop building things there altogether, but we could also try raising taxes and adding building regulations, making it impossibly expensive to live and work there. Surely that will stop people from building and moving there. 97% of engineers agree that earthquakes can be troubling.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mcbits 10y ago
Someone replied to me and deleted it, and I don't want to waste the time I spent writing a response, so here it is: No, that wasn't my claim. If I have a claim, it's that, instead of simply moving away, people keep building up an active seismic fault that's likely to suffer a catastrophic earthquake in the near future. Even high taxes (some of which funded the policy piece you cited) and massively increased costs of construction (such as proposed in the policy piece you cited) aren't incentive enough to stop. This aspect of human behavior is worth remembering when someone suggests similar "incentives" to address climate change. It's trying to incentivize the same mindset that would rather build cities out of springs and pendulums than move to stable land. We should face the reality that humans will eventually deal with the negative side of climate change using (not so?) metaphorical springs, levers, stilts, and who-knows-what, and it will be okay. I don't click Forbes links, but from the URL it looks like it's about a hoax bill that was proposed for PR purposes. Not interested.

shouldbworking 10y ago

I'm not arguing about higher sea level, temperatures, or CO2 levels. I fully believe that all of these are going up. I think it's unrealistic to believe we can get the whole planet to reduce CO2 emission, so we should stop spending so much effort on it and find other solutions. I also doubt how much rising sea level will actually hurt humanity. Even in the worst case scenario were talking about an inch or two a year. This is slow enough to easily build a wall, dredge to raise up land, or move buildings away from rising waters. Besides, who puts buildings five feet above the water? The vast majority of buildings would just flood more often. It's not like buildings on the coast don't already get hit by cyclones.

pas 10y ago
> I think it's unrealistic to believe we can get the whole planet to reduce CO2 emission Why? The problem with fossil fuels - especially coal, isn't "just CO2", it's all the ash that is killing people. The problems with oil extraction isn't just the CO2 at the end, it's all the crude and junk stuff going (bunker oil), and the political power of the oil lobby, and how dictatorships are financed by these resources. Sure, these are the factors that make it hard to change, even "locally", within the US. > cyclones Yes, and just estimate the cost of a lot more cyclones. It turns out to be a lot more than switching to non-fossil stuff. And that's why a lot of people think that it's not rational to try to continue the consumption of fossil fuels (in a way that leads to CO2 emissions).