11 ms·

In Antarctica, climate change is having surprising impacts

161 points by NeedMoreTea 8y ago

KennethRossi 8y ago
Antarctica has experienced air temperature will increase of three°C within the Antarctic Peninsula despite the fact that that may not appear very plenty, it is five times the mean price of global warming as mentioned by using the Intergovernmental Panel on weather change. https://essayservices.org/ https://essayservices.org/
walrus01 8y ago
I am still astonished that there are people out there, particularly politicians, who can look at the atmospheric co2 charts for the past 50 years at Mauna Loa, vs ice core sample data going back hundreds of thousands of years, and go "nope, no greenhouse gases, no global warming". https://www.google.ca/search?q=atmospheric+co2+mauna+loa&oq=atmospheric+co2+mau&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l2.5168j0j7&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.ca/search?q=atmospheric+co2+mauna+loa&oq=...
- stephengillie 8y ago
  Who says they're looking at these things? I'm surprised these politicians can hear about the trans-polar shipping route opening up, and still disbelieve.
- roenxi 8y ago
  Anyone who says greenhouse gas concentrations are not going up is not operating in an evidence-based manner. That being said, the politicians might have been behaving sensibly. I've not been following it as closely as I used to, but there have been some data points suggesting solar/wind energy sources are now starting to cross key thresholds and become cheaper than the traditional fossil fuels. If that is so, the problem will solve itself without the politicians needing to step in and screw up the economy.
  - walrus01 8y ago
    The price drop in $ per kWh generated by solar, wind and hydroelectric, etc, has nothing to do with the growing concentration of greenhouse gases. You can look at greenhouse gas causing figures such as how many megatonnes of coal are burned each year, how many barrels of oil Canada exports to the USA each year, they're all on a steady climb. The world has an inexorable thirst for energy. It's great if there are more watt-hours being generated by green sources, but at the same time, there is what seems to be an inexorable growth in pollution causing sources. Example: Look at how many cars are sold each year to the growing middle class in China and India.
  - TomK32 8y ago
    You forget the third player, fossil energy companies who are keen to protect their business and fight against this change. Politicians don't keep out, they are just as likely to help the old companies.
  - pmontra 8y ago
    Still, the planet won't cool down only because we start using solar energy. We should actively remove CO2 and methane from the atmosphere. Planting trees is likely not enough. This other article from 2017 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/antarctica-sea-level-rise-climate-change/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/antarcti... states that > the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was as high as it is today, and the temperature was about what it’s expected to be in 2050, sea levels were up to 70 feet higher than today. That's going to cause mass migrations in all countries of the world, rich and poor, and destroy the logistics that let us live like we do now. Obviously we'll adapt but there are going to be maybe billions of deaths (famine and diseases). I think I'm lucky because I'll be dead by then. However I could see the first coastal cities going a little bit underwater. Ultimately we elect our politicians so we are responsible for what they decide and not decide to look at. We'll get what we deserve.
- everdev 8y ago
  There is so much money in politics, it's not surprising when one of them rejects an overwhelming number of experts and sides with their donors or the short-term economic interests of their constituents. Sure, short sighted, profit focused decisions create a long term detriment, but the system that encourages and rewards those types of decisions is also a big problem.
  - gonzo41 8y ago
    The point I make about climate change is we live day to day with politicians trying to maintain the status quo. Look at how free trade and globalization changed lives. I'm Australian and Australia doesn't build cars anymore. We do financial services and flip houses. When we live in a world where humans can't survive between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn because wet humidity will kill them. Then we're going to see a lot of migration and society is going to change in a big way. the term "eat the rich" springs to mind.
- jeromebaek 8y ago
  I think that politicians not believing in global warming is so ridiculous, there is a simpler explanation: they know exactly what's happening to the climate, but they secretly welcome it, as consistent with fascist ideology. More on this idea: https://eand.co/how-capitalism-torched-the-planet-and-left-it-a-smoking-fascist-greenhouse-fe687e99f070 https://eand.co/how-capitalism-torched-the-planet-and-left-i...
- oldandtired 8y ago
  There's your problem - Mauna Loa. If those who want to say that CO2 levels are trending up then there is a significant need to have 1000's upon 1000's of monitoring points worldwide. This way the evidence can be gathered to show what is happening around the globe. In addition, with these CO2 monitoring points, we need rainfall information, temperature information, plant growth rate information, vehicle usage, manufacturing and population information. We need volcanic activity information, we need land usage information, we need forest and bush fire information. This data collection is only the tip of the "iceberg" of information we need. Without it, we do not have the evidence profile required to demonstrate what is actually happening around the world. Without that evidence, we are unable to see what needs to be done. When it boils down to it, there are climate change effects that can be mitigated, there are climate change effects that cannot be mitigated. Choosing strategies that are ineffective is, in many cases, worse than doing nothing. Take my country Australia for example, many of the species of plant life depend on drought conditions and the subsequent bush fires for the propagation of the species and regeneration of the land. Increased CO2 levels have a beneficial effect on the plant life by either reducing water consumption or increasing density and growth of plants, so that our tree population increases. Increasing forest coverage increases water retention. Without comprehensive data, we are all blind-sided. There is no level playing field on which we can build the appropriate strategies. For those who say we must do something now, how do you know that what is being proposed won't make things worse?
  - walrus01 8y ago
    There are thousands of co2 monitoring stations worldwide, and they all show the same data. Mauna Loa is a good indicator for global co2 in the atmosphere because its position is exposed to high altitude winds that circulate around the entire Pacific ocean, and it is not near a extremely populated area with a lot of fossil fuel burning that would skew the results. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global Barrow, Alaska, Mauna Loa, Samoa, and the South Pole all show the re same trend. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... We have comprehensive data going back a million years, from deep ice cores.
- hazz99 8y ago
  I've heard "climate change occurs in cycles" from many of my equally-educated friends. It's scientific-sounding, you can find research articles online (apparently), but from what I understand – a total myth. But that may give some insight into /why/ so many people, including intelligent ones, disregard climate change.
  - TotempaaltJ 8y ago
    It's technically correct (the worst kind of correct): as I understand it, the global climate has been warmer than it is now. But there weren't any humans, and it didn't warm up nearly as fast.
  - richardknop 8y ago
    It is true though. The climate has been both warmer and colder than it is now just several centuries ago (little ice age, medieval warm period). This is well documented and accepted by scientists even though reasons are not clear (definitely not human activity at that time obviously). In our current era humans are contributing to the changing climate in a very big way given our industrialization, the extreme levels of population and economy dependent on extracting oil and coal from the ground and burning it. That does not change the fact that climate has been changing even before humans could have any noticeable impact on it, and those changes were often very fast and sometimes cyclical.
    - hazz99 8y ago
      You seem more knowledgeable on this than I am. Is it cyclical, but the change has been heavily increased by human activity? If it's just cyclical, then why are we blaming our activity?
  - jryan49 8y ago
    Just show them this XKCD graph https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  Its hard to get a person to understand something when they are paid to not understand it.
- tejohnso 8y ago
  Trump is on record calling the whole thing a "hoax". However, the Trump administration has recently indicated that we're likely to see a 7 degree increase in average global temperature by 2100. https://www.fastcompany.com/90243700/the-trump-admin-says-screw-it-the-world-will-burn-by-2100-no-matter-what https://www.fastcompany.com/90243700/the-trump-admin-says-sc...
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    Building sea walls around your golf courses must trigger some rational thought surely? https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/21/trump-wall-golf-course-doonbeg-ireland https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/201...
- liftbigweights 8y ago
  It's not that they say there isn't global warming. It's that they say it's just mostly part of the natural climate cycle. Just as astonishing as "climate change deniers" are the "climate change fanatics" who thinks climate was static until 200 years ago. I believe humans are affecting the climate to some degree, but not all. I'm more concerned about preserving the environment/nature/species/forests/etc rather than global warming. I don't think the world is going to end because of global warming. I do think there will be winners ( global north ) and losers ( global south ). And most importantly, I'm against people fearmongering about the climate to sneak in global carbon taxation system to enrich themselves. Also, for much of the 20th century up until the 1970s, people cherrypicked data points to assure us that we were experiencing global cooling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/g... Hopefully one day, politics will leave climate science so that people can do real science rather than practicing politics. Once again, I do believe the climate has been warming in the short term. I do believe humans have contributed to it somewhat. I don't think it is the end of the world. I don't think humans should give up civilization because of global warming. And I don't believe in using climate to give bankers and wall street a global carbon taxation system to gamble on.
- wisty 8y ago
  They do have a valid argument - it's possible that future predictions are badly wrong. It's like the early days of the space race. Scientists would say things are dangerous and were just being alarmist, or think it was safe then the whole thing blew up killing everyone aboard. Scientists can't always predict the future as accurately as they think. I don't think this is a good reason to just blithely hope for the best, though.
  - open-source-ux 8y ago
    "it's possible that future predictions are badly wrong" Climate model predictions of global warming have generally been fairly consistent in projecting future warming, as shown in this animated chart: https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ38rf7F3al/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ38rf7F3al/ The chart is taken from this 2017 article: Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?: > "While some models projected less warming than we’ve experienced and some projected more, all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not too far off from what actually occurred, particularly when differences in assumed future emissions are taken into account." https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m...
    - lixtra 8y ago
      Thanks, but the animation is unfortunate, because the later predictions are compared to shorter periods and make predictions about the past (so most likely they were fitted against them). Of course it looks like a good match. At least they are honest enough to put a dashed line. In general the climate science has been very sloppy so they lost a lot of trust. This starts with the name greenhouse effect that describes something different from the main effect in a greenhouse (warm air cannot escape vs reflected radiation). And goes on with melting glaciers in the Himalayas in the next 30 years. Climate gate didn’t increase trust either. Of course this doesn’t prove that climate scientists are wrong. But they appear more confident than they should.
- guscost 8y ago
  This is a tricky subject, and we're probably on opposing sides of the political argument, but if you're interested: Sure, there are people who say "no greenhouse gases, no global warming" and stop thinking at that point. Some of them are in positions of power. This kind of attitude is dangerous and could lead to big mistakes in the long term. On the other hand, the people who say "greenhouse gases, but maybe not much global warming" or "land use and healthy ecosystems are most important" or "gradually moving toward less carbon in fuel is the best approach" never seem to get a shout-out from the activists. It's usually more like: "We're trying to save these neanderthals and they're stupid/tricked by evil so they're going to end up killing us all." Can you see how this doesn't lead to healthy cooperation? The "no greenhouse gases, no global warming" people might not know how to study the climate, but do you really believe that all of them were fed that mantra by bad actors, and none of them are just lashing out at bullies? From my perspective, the activists started their political campaign to regulate CO2 back when the Science (IPCC FAR) said "the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability" and I have been suspicious of their motives ever since. You want me to be mindful of carbon in the atmosphere, measured temperature trends, changing ecosystems, pollution, and resource use? Great, those are all smart things to care about. You want me to support your political campaign to regulate the gas that I exhale, because otherwise there will be a doomsday, and if I don't agree I'm either stupid or evil? Ehhhhh, no thanks.
  - andyjohnson0 8y ago
    While I can appreciate your argument, particularly how some climate change activism can appear to be bullying, you lost me at your last paragraph: >You want me to support your political campaign to regulate the gas that I exhale, because otherwise there will be a doomsday, and if I don't agree I'm either stupid or evil? Ehhhhh, no thanks. The fact that you exhale co2 is just not relevant. It's not your exhalation that is menacing the future of humans and other animals. It's the "exhalations" of industrial-scale energy generation (and also industrial-scale agriculture, etc) that are the problem. Surely you see that, yes? > stupid or evil I'm not accusing you, but there absolutely are some evil people at work here. These are people who know (and in many cases have known for decades) that what they're doing - large scale atmospheric dumping of co2 - is going to cause real harm and suffering to fellow humans, but choose to do it anyway because they personally profit from it and their wealth insulates them from the consequences within their lifetime.
- jlawson 8y ago
  I've been following this debate for years. I constantly see people arguing against this position that "nope, no greenhouse gases, no global warming". Yet I have never, not once, not ever seen this point expressed by any person of significance. Every single time, it turns out to be a strawman constructed by taking statements out of context, or applying dumb overly-literal interpretations to someone's words. Always. If someone could point to any example ever of any significant person stating that the climate is not changing whatsoever, or that humans cannot possibly affect climate in the slightest, I'd be very interested. Not taking two words out of context - I mean someone who clearly means that and sticks to that message. Does such a person exist anywhere today? What is his or her name?
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    “If someone could point to any example ever of any significant person stating that the climate is not changing whatsoever, or that humans cannot possibly affect climate in the slightest, ” This is Marco Rubio, US senator, who claims global warming is not caused by humans. ““I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate,” Rubio said in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s This Week. “Our climate is always changing.”” - http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/marco-rubio-global-warming http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/marco-rubio-global-warming Roger Wicker, US senator voted No on an amendment to confirm Climate Change is real. http://time.com/3677496/climate-change-wicker-inhofe/ http://time.com/3677496/climate-change-wicker-inhofe/ There’s a list of senators who voted against that climate change is caused by humans: https://www.aip.org/fyi/2015/record-key-senate-vote-climate-change https://www.aip.org/fyi/2015/record-key-senate-vote-climate-... The POTUS has stated multiple times that climate change is a hoax, and has only recently amended that he believes its naturally occurring (not human influenced) https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-global-warming-hoax/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-global-warmin... Even with the demand for proof of someone that absolutely denies climate change, you leave in two difficult phrases here: “significant” and “in the slightest”. Both of these give you a rhetorical out on technical merits- anyone who denies climate change will do so using FUD techniques, not outright stating their denial, therefore it’s easy to say no one uses obvious language. The effect however is still the same- politicians and significant figures are spreading FUD about climate change, which is causing climate change and human caused climate change to be called into public question and it prevents legislation being passed to regulate emissions.
- red-tea 8y ago
  It's because they realise that they will die of old age before their own life is at risk so they'd rather continue their unsustainable lifestyle and let their children figure out how to pay the debt.
- fancyfish 8y ago
  Politicians realize combatting climate change is going to require drastic changes on a societal level, particularly with deep regulations, public work projects, etc. They already know what their stance is going to be before any of this data comes out. It happens every year. The status quo is too comfortable and lucrative. If you've decided to do nothing in response to the reports, the easiest talking point to garner support is to say the science is biased, unreliable, and so on. That talking point has worked for decades. And it has a real impact with people who take it at face value.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
Interesting to see how the phrasing has changed in the last few years. "Assume the sale" style by presenting the issue as a done deal. Younger Dryas, medieval warming period, little ice age etc. All ignored. It is the tactics of the used car salesman applied to science...
- skh 8y ago
  What is interesting is that a non expert in the field feels qualified to judge the motivations of the experts. Consider that your opinion is not all on the same level of credence as that of the experts and should not be given anywhere near the same level of consideration. Perhaps the phrasing has changed not because of some PR style salesmanship but rather because the people with expertise no longer have any doubts.
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
    I don't buy arguments from authority, sorry. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too... Agreeing with me on the phrasing while simultaneously justifying it.
    - skh 8y ago
      The argumentative fallacy is called the fallacy of the false appeal to authority. For instance citing a person's Ph.D. in English literature as a reason to believe their statements on quantum mechanics is an example of fallacious reasoning. Referring to the statements about quantum mechanics of an expert in quantum mechanics is not fallacious reasoning. You do buy arguments from authority every time you listen to your doctor's advice regarding your health. It’s perfectly reasonable to listen to consensus expert opinions on climate change and if you think they have changed their phrasing over the years by assuming the sale it’s because they no longer have doubts about the cause of climate change.
      - patrickg_zill 8y ago
        The consensus of the Supreme Court of the United States was that Black people were not legally the same as Whites. Your argument about doctor's advice undermines your point: are eggs healthy to eat, or not? Should a good daily diet include 6 or more servings of wheat and carbs? In both cases the consensus was strongly expressed and later debunked...
yters 8y ago
A number of reasonable sounding posts get a lot of down votes for some reason. Not sure why that has to happen, nor that is helps the case much.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  It looks like it's mostly just people arguing about global warming, bringing in their usual prejudices and incomplete knowledge. That's been rehashed here so many times it can't be done in good faith. Maybe if the comments were more focused on the specifics of the article.
ACC_investor 8y ago
What is the best way to invest (long-term) in climate change?
- pokemongoaway 8y ago
  Buy water front property because it doesn't exist?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- analog31 8y ago
  Perhaps strategic land purchases, with the proviso that "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
- drankula3 8y ago
  Personally, I am thinking very hard about buying rural land in Canada, as global warming and mass migration may cause the price of land to go up substantially over time. I haven't run the numbers or pulled the trigger yet though.
  - flycaliguy 8y ago
    What part of Canada, have you researched the best spot? I'd be curious to know. I own a swampy patch of land with some peat moss potential on PEI. Part of me wonders if that whole island will be under water just when I need it...
  - mythrwy 8y ago
    That seems to assume global warming will happen fast and pronounced enough to recoup your investment. A degree average in 50 years doesn't seem like it would do it.
- wcoenen 8y ago
  There is a cap and trade scheme for certain CO2 emissions in the EU[1], and you could try to get exposure to the futures[2] for those emission rights. I see JE00B3CG6315 is a fund doing that. Keep in mind though that the price can go to zero if the actual emissions go below the emissions cap, which happened in 2007. Presumably the EU will try to manage the cap to prevent that from happening again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin... [2] https://www.theice.com/products/197/EUA-Futures https://www.theice.com/products/197/EUA-Futures
jnurmine 8y ago
A thought. Bear with me, I might be catching a cold. When a planetary climate is being intentionally altered in a large scale, it is called terraforming. But just who benefits from terraforming the Earth to be more hostile to human civilization?
- titanomachy 8y ago
  Sort of, I think "to terraform" usually means "to make more like Earth" though.
  - EForEndeavour 8y ago
    Technically, the definition of "terraforming" is constantly changing to match Terra's changing climate.
  - jnurmine 8y ago
    Yes, indeed. You are correct. A better term would have been "climate engineering". Though I wonder if "venusforming" is also apt, keeping in mind what the results are said to be down the line.
- api 8y ago
  There was a scifi flick a while back about aliens from a hot world infiltrating government and industry to push policies that maximize carbon emissions. Forget the title.
  - z0r 8y ago
    The Arrival: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arrival_(1996_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arrival_(1996_film)
- maltalex 8y ago
  Hanlon’s razor.
- screye 8y ago
  It's the lizard people isn't it ?
burlesona 8y ago
If North American culture could learn to build new small cities that didn’t need cars - as the old cities were built - and successfully market and sell them to today’s suburban crowd, we’d have a much better chance at stopping this. It kills me, though, just how impossible that would be.
- aphextron 8y ago
  >It kills me, though, just how impossible that would be. Is it though? It seems completely like a matter of will. I've thought about this exact idea before. How much VC would it take to build a small town? A couple billion? People are throwing gobs of money ten times that at absolute nonsense right now. Why couldn't we use it for meaningful progress instead?
  - api 8y ago
    The allure of gambling is powerful. Everyone can estimate ROI on a planned community. Nobody can estimate ROI on hot air, so it "could" be "the next" whatever-the-last-thing-was. Nobody wants to be the one who passed on Facebook or Bitcoin in 2014 to invest in something boring like housing. Statistically huge pops like those are extremely rare. Someone wins in the casino but statistically it won't be you. Statistically you are better off making rational investments. But... FOMO and daydreams and... there was that one time! ... rat pushes lever, rat pushes lever...
  - bleair 8y ago
    Aside a small number of exceptions US citizens hate using public transit themselves. This is reinforced by how public transit stations are always on the most undesirable real estate. If you’re successful you have a car, only the poor/unsuccessful/unusual don’t have 1 or more cars in their household.
  - ibeckermayer 8y ago
    Good luck setting up a new government when the old government refuses to give up power...
- analog31 8y ago
dawhizkid 8y ago
There's something about reading an article like this that makes all the small things I seem to worry about go away.

161 points by NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Antarctica has experienced air temperature will increase of three°C within the Antarctic Peninsula despite the fact that that may not appear very plenty, it is five times the mean price of global warming as mentioned by using the Intergovernmental Panel on weather change. https://essayservices.org/ https://essayservices.org/

walrus01 8y ago

I am still astonished that there are people out there, particularly politicians, who can look at the atmospheric co2 charts for the past 50 years at Mauna Loa, vs ice core sample data going back hundreds of thousands of years, and go "nope, no greenhouse gases, no global warming". https://www.google.ca/search?q=atmospheric+co2+mauna+loa&oq=atmospheric+co2+mau&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l2.5168j0j7&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.ca/search?q=atmospheric+co2+mauna+loa&oq=...

stephengillie 8y ago
Who says they're looking at these things? I'm surprised these politicians can hear about the trans-polar shipping route opening up, and still disbelieve.
roenxi 8y ago
Anyone who says greenhouse gas concentrations are not going up is not operating in an evidence-based manner. That being said, the politicians might have been behaving sensibly. I've not been following it as closely as I used to, but there have been some data points suggesting solar/wind energy sources are now starting to cross key thresholds and become cheaper than the traditional fossil fuels. If that is so, the problem will solve itself without the politicians needing to step in and screw up the economy.
- walrus01 8y ago
  The price drop in $ per kWh generated by solar, wind and hydroelectric, etc, has nothing to do with the growing concentration of greenhouse gases. You can look at greenhouse gas causing figures such as how many megatonnes of coal are burned each year, how many barrels of oil Canada exports to the USA each year, they're all on a steady climb. The world has an inexorable thirst for energy. It's great if there are more watt-hours being generated by green sources, but at the same time, there is what seems to be an inexorable growth in pollution causing sources. Example: Look at how many cars are sold each year to the growing middle class in China and India.
- TomK32 8y ago
  You forget the third player, fossil energy companies who are keen to protect their business and fight against this change. Politicians don't keep out, they are just as likely to help the old companies.
- pmontra 8y ago
  Still, the planet won't cool down only because we start using solar energy. We should actively remove CO2 and methane from the atmosphere. Planting trees is likely not enough. This other article from 2017 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/antarctica-sea-level-rise-climate-change/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/antarcti... states that > the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was as high as it is today, and the temperature was about what it’s expected to be in 2050, sea levels were up to 70 feet higher than today. That's going to cause mass migrations in all countries of the world, rich and poor, and destroy the logistics that let us live like we do now. Obviously we'll adapt but there are going to be maybe billions of deaths (famine and diseases). I think I'm lucky because I'll be dead by then. However I could see the first coastal cities going a little bit underwater. Ultimately we elect our politicians so we are responsible for what they decide and not decide to look at. We'll get what we deserve.
everdev 8y ago
There is so much money in politics, it's not surprising when one of them rejects an overwhelming number of experts and sides with their donors or the short-term economic interests of their constituents. Sure, short sighted, profit focused decisions create a long term detriment, but the system that encourages and rewards those types of decisions is also a big problem.
- gonzo41 8y ago
  The point I make about climate change is we live day to day with politicians trying to maintain the status quo. Look at how free trade and globalization changed lives. I'm Australian and Australia doesn't build cars anymore. We do financial services and flip houses. When we live in a world where humans can't survive between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn because wet humidity will kill them. Then we're going to see a lot of migration and society is going to change in a big way. the term "eat the rich" springs to mind.
jeromebaek 8y ago
I think that politicians not believing in global warming is so ridiculous, there is a simpler explanation: they know exactly what's happening to the climate, but they secretly welcome it, as consistent with fascist ideology. More on this idea: https://eand.co/how-capitalism-torched-the-planet-and-left-it-a-smoking-fascist-greenhouse-fe687e99f070 https://eand.co/how-capitalism-torched-the-planet-and-left-i...
oldandtired 8y ago
There's your problem - Mauna Loa. If those who want to say that CO2 levels are trending up then there is a significant need to have 1000's upon 1000's of monitoring points worldwide. This way the evidence can be gathered to show what is happening around the globe. In addition, with these CO2 monitoring points, we need rainfall information, temperature information, plant growth rate information, vehicle usage, manufacturing and population information. We need volcanic activity information, we need land usage information, we need forest and bush fire information. This data collection is only the tip of the "iceberg" of information we need. Without it, we do not have the evidence profile required to demonstrate what is actually happening around the world. Without that evidence, we are unable to see what needs to be done. When it boils down to it, there are climate change effects that can be mitigated, there are climate change effects that cannot be mitigated. Choosing strategies that are ineffective is, in many cases, worse than doing nothing. Take my country Australia for example, many of the species of plant life depend on drought conditions and the subsequent bush fires for the propagation of the species and regeneration of the land. Increased CO2 levels have a beneficial effect on the plant life by either reducing water consumption or increasing density and growth of plants, so that our tree population increases. Increasing forest coverage increases water retention. Without comprehensive data, we are all blind-sided. There is no level playing field on which we can build the appropriate strategies. For those who say we must do something now, how do you know that what is being proposed won't make things worse?
- walrus01 8y ago
  There are thousands of co2 monitoring stations worldwide, and they all show the same data. Mauna Loa is a good indicator for global co2 in the atmosphere because its position is exposed to high altitude winds that circulate around the entire Pacific ocean, and it is not near a extremely populated area with a lot of fossil fuel burning that would skew the results. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global Barrow, Alaska, Mauna Loa, Samoa, and the South Pole all show the re same trend. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... We have comprehensive data going back a million years, from deep ice cores.
hazz99 8y ago
I've heard "climate change occurs in cycles" from many of my equally-educated friends. It's scientific-sounding, you can find research articles online (apparently), but from what I understand – a total myth. But that may give some insight into /why/ so many people, including intelligent ones, disregard climate change.
- TotempaaltJ 8y ago
  It's technically correct (the worst kind of correct): as I understand it, the global climate has been warmer than it is now. But there weren't any humans, and it didn't warm up nearly as fast.
- richardknop 8y ago
  It is true though. The climate has been both warmer and colder than it is now just several centuries ago (little ice age, medieval warm period). This is well documented and accepted by scientists even though reasons are not clear (definitely not human activity at that time obviously). In our current era humans are contributing to the changing climate in a very big way given our industrialization, the extreme levels of population and economy dependent on extracting oil and coal from the ground and burning it. That does not change the fact that climate has been changing even before humans could have any noticeable impact on it, and those changes were often very fast and sometimes cyclical.
  - hazz99 8y ago
    You seem more knowledgeable on this than I am. Is it cyclical, but the change has been heavily increased by human activity? If it's just cyclical, then why are we blaming our activity?
- jryan49 8y ago
  Just show them this XKCD graph https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
ndnxhs 8y ago
Its hard to get a person to understand something when they are paid to not understand it.
tejohnso 8y ago
Trump is on record calling the whole thing a "hoax". However, the Trump administration has recently indicated that we're likely to see a 7 degree increase in average global temperature by 2100. https://www.fastcompany.com/90243700/the-trump-admin-says-screw-it-the-world-will-burn-by-2100-no-matter-what https://www.fastcompany.com/90243700/the-trump-admin-says-sc...
- lostlogin 8y ago
  Building sea walls around your golf courses must trigger some rational thought surely? https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/21/trump-wall-golf-course-doonbeg-ireland https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/201...
liftbigweights 8y ago
It's not that they say there isn't global warming. It's that they say it's just mostly part of the natural climate cycle. Just as astonishing as "climate change deniers" are the "climate change fanatics" who thinks climate was static until 200 years ago. I believe humans are affecting the climate to some degree, but not all. I'm more concerned about preserving the environment/nature/species/forests/etc rather than global warming. I don't think the world is going to end because of global warming. I do think there will be winners ( global north ) and losers ( global south ). And most importantly, I'm against people fearmongering about the climate to sneak in global carbon taxation system to enrich themselves. Also, for much of the 20th century up until the 1970s, people cherrypicked data points to assure us that we were experiencing global cooling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/g... Hopefully one day, politics will leave climate science so that people can do real science rather than practicing politics. Once again, I do believe the climate has been warming in the short term. I do believe humans have contributed to it somewhat. I don't think it is the end of the world. I don't think humans should give up civilization because of global warming. And I don't believe in using climate to give bankers and wall street a global carbon taxation system to gamble on.
wisty 8y ago
They do have a valid argument - it's possible that future predictions are badly wrong. It's like the early days of the space race. Scientists would say things are dangerous and were just being alarmist, or think it was safe then the whole thing blew up killing everyone aboard. Scientists can't always predict the future as accurately as they think. I don't think this is a good reason to just blithely hope for the best, though.
- open-source-ux 8y ago
  "it's possible that future predictions are badly wrong" Climate model predictions of global warming have generally been fairly consistent in projecting future warming, as shown in this animated chart: https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ38rf7F3al/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ38rf7F3al/ The chart is taken from this 2017 article: Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?: > "While some models projected less warming than we’ve experienced and some projected more, all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not too far off from what actually occurred, particularly when differences in assumed future emissions are taken into account." https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m...
  - lixtra 8y ago
    Thanks, but the animation is unfortunate, because the later predictions are compared to shorter periods and make predictions about the past (so most likely they were fitted against them). Of course it looks like a good match. At least they are honest enough to put a dashed line. In general the climate science has been very sloppy so they lost a lot of trust. This starts with the name greenhouse effect that describes something different from the main effect in a greenhouse (warm air cannot escape vs reflected radiation). And goes on with melting glaciers in the Himalayas in the next 30 years. Climate gate didn’t increase trust either. Of course this doesn’t prove that climate scientists are wrong. But they appear more confident than they should.
guscost 8y ago
This is a tricky subject, and we're probably on opposing sides of the political argument, but if you're interested: Sure, there are people who say "no greenhouse gases, no global warming" and stop thinking at that point. Some of them are in positions of power. This kind of attitude is dangerous and could lead to big mistakes in the long term. On the other hand, the people who say "greenhouse gases, but maybe not much global warming" or "land use and healthy ecosystems are most important" or "gradually moving toward less carbon in fuel is the best approach" never seem to get a shout-out from the activists. It's usually more like: "We're trying to save these neanderthals and they're stupid/tricked by evil so they're going to end up killing us all." Can you see how this doesn't lead to healthy cooperation? The "no greenhouse gases, no global warming" people might not know how to study the climate, but do you really believe that all of them were fed that mantra by bad actors, and none of them are just lashing out at bullies? From my perspective, the activists started their political campaign to regulate CO2 back when the Science (IPCC FAR) said "the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability" and I have been suspicious of their motives ever since. You want me to be mindful of carbon in the atmosphere, measured temperature trends, changing ecosystems, pollution, and resource use? Great, those are all smart things to care about. You want me to support your political campaign to regulate the gas that I exhale, because otherwise there will be a doomsday, and if I don't agree I'm either stupid or evil? Ehhhhh, no thanks.
- andyjohnson0 8y ago
  While I can appreciate your argument, particularly how some climate change activism can appear to be bullying, you lost me at your last paragraph: >You want me to support your political campaign to regulate the gas that I exhale, because otherwise there will be a doomsday, and if I don't agree I'm either stupid or evil? Ehhhhh, no thanks. The fact that you exhale co2 is just not relevant. It's not your exhalation that is menacing the future of humans and other animals. It's the "exhalations" of industrial-scale energy generation (and also industrial-scale agriculture, etc) that are the problem. Surely you see that, yes? > stupid or evil I'm not accusing you, but there absolutely are some evil people at work here. These are people who know (and in many cases have known for decades) that what they're doing - large scale atmospheric dumping of co2 - is going to cause real harm and suffering to fellow humans, but choose to do it anyway because they personally profit from it and their wealth insulates them from the consequences within their lifetime.
jlawson 8y ago
I've been following this debate for years. I constantly see people arguing against this position that "nope, no greenhouse gases, no global warming". Yet I have never, not once, not ever seen this point expressed by any person of significance. Every single time, it turns out to be a strawman constructed by taking statements out of context, or applying dumb overly-literal interpretations to someone's words. Always. If someone could point to any example ever of any significant person stating that the climate is not changing whatsoever, or that humans cannot possibly affect climate in the slightest, I'd be very interested. Not taking two words out of context - I mean someone who clearly means that and sticks to that message. Does such a person exist anywhere today? What is his or her name?
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  “If someone could point to any example ever of any significant person stating that the climate is not changing whatsoever, or that humans cannot possibly affect climate in the slightest, ” This is Marco Rubio, US senator, who claims global warming is not caused by humans. ““I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate,” Rubio said in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s This Week. “Our climate is always changing.”” - http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/marco-rubio-global-warming http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/marco-rubio-global-warming Roger Wicker, US senator voted No on an amendment to confirm Climate Change is real. http://time.com/3677496/climate-change-wicker-inhofe/ http://time.com/3677496/climate-change-wicker-inhofe/ There’s a list of senators who voted against that climate change is caused by humans: https://www.aip.org/fyi/2015/record-key-senate-vote-climate-change https://www.aip.org/fyi/2015/record-key-senate-vote-climate-... The POTUS has stated multiple times that climate change is a hoax, and has only recently amended that he believes its naturally occurring (not human influenced) https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-global-warming-hoax/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-global-warmin... Even with the demand for proof of someone that absolutely denies climate change, you leave in two difficult phrases here: “significant” and “in the slightest”. Both of these give you a rhetorical out on technical merits- anyone who denies climate change will do so using FUD techniques, not outright stating their denial, therefore it’s easy to say no one uses obvious language. The effect however is still the same- politicians and significant figures are spreading FUD about climate change, which is causing climate change and human caused climate change to be called into public question and it prevents legislation being passed to regulate emissions.
red-tea 8y ago
It's because they realise that they will die of old age before their own life is at risk so they'd rather continue their unsustainable lifestyle and let their children figure out how to pay the debt.
fancyfish 8y ago
Politicians realize combatting climate change is going to require drastic changes on a societal level, particularly with deep regulations, public work projects, etc. They already know what their stance is going to be before any of this data comes out. It happens every year. The status quo is too comfortable and lucrative. If you've decided to do nothing in response to the reports, the easiest talking point to garner support is to say the science is biased, unreliable, and so on. That talking point has worked for decades. And it has a real impact with people who take it at face value.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

Interesting to see how the phrasing has changed in the last few years. "Assume the sale" style by presenting the issue as a done deal. Younger Dryas, medieval warming period, little ice age etc. All ignored. It is the tactics of the used car salesman applied to science...

skh 8y ago
What is interesting is that a non expert in the field feels qualified to judge the motivations of the experts. Consider that your opinion is not all on the same level of credence as that of the experts and should not be given anywhere near the same level of consideration. Perhaps the phrasing has changed not because of some PR style salesmanship but rather because the people with expertise no longer have any doubts.
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  I don't buy arguments from authority, sorry. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too... Agreeing with me on the phrasing while simultaneously justifying it.
  - skh 8y ago
    The argumentative fallacy is called the fallacy of the false appeal to authority. For instance citing a person's Ph.D. in English literature as a reason to believe their statements on quantum mechanics is an example of fallacious reasoning. Referring to the statements about quantum mechanics of an expert in quantum mechanics is not fallacious reasoning. You do buy arguments from authority every time you listen to your doctor's advice regarding your health. It’s perfectly reasonable to listen to consensus expert opinions on climate change and if you think they have changed their phrasing over the years by assuming the sale it’s because they no longer have doubts about the cause of climate change.
    - patrickg_zill 8y ago
      The consensus of the Supreme Court of the United States was that Black people were not legally the same as Whites. Your argument about doctor's advice undermines your point: are eggs healthy to eat, or not? Should a good daily diet include 6 or more servings of wheat and carbs? In both cases the consensus was strongly expressed and later debunked...

yters 8y ago

A number of reasonable sounding posts get a lot of down votes for some reason. Not sure why that has to happen, nor that is helps the case much.

akvadrako 8y ago
It looks like it's mostly just people arguing about global warming, bringing in their usual prejudices and incomplete knowledge. That's been rehashed here so many times it can't be done in good faith. Maybe if the comments were more focused on the specifics of the article.

ACC_investor 8y ago

What is the best way to invest (long-term) in climate change?

pokemongoaway 8y ago
Buy water front property because it doesn't exist?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
analog31 8y ago
Perhaps strategic land purchases, with the proviso that "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
drankula3 8y ago
Personally, I am thinking very hard about buying rural land in Canada, as global warming and mass migration may cause the price of land to go up substantially over time. I haven't run the numbers or pulled the trigger yet though.
- flycaliguy 8y ago
  What part of Canada, have you researched the best spot? I'd be curious to know. I own a swampy patch of land with some peat moss potential on PEI. Part of me wonders if that whole island will be under water just when I need it...
- mythrwy 8y ago
  That seems to assume global warming will happen fast and pronounced enough to recoup your investment. A degree average in 50 years doesn't seem like it would do it.
wcoenen 8y ago
There is a cap and trade scheme for certain CO2 emissions in the EU[1], and you could try to get exposure to the futures[2] for those emission rights. I see JE00B3CG6315 is a fund doing that. Keep in mind though that the price can go to zero if the actual emissions go below the emissions cap, which happened in 2007. Presumably the EU will try to manage the cap to prevent that from happening again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin... [2] https://www.theice.com/products/197/EUA-Futures https://www.theice.com/products/197/EUA-Futures

jnurmine 8y ago

A thought. Bear with me, I might be catching a cold. When a planetary climate is being intentionally altered in a large scale, it is called terraforming. But just who benefits from terraforming the Earth to be more hostile to human civilization?

titanomachy 8y ago
Sort of, I think "to terraform" usually means "to make more like Earth" though.
- EForEndeavour 8y ago
  Technically, the definition of "terraforming" is constantly changing to match Terra's changing climate.
- jnurmine 8y ago
  Yes, indeed. You are correct. A better term would have been "climate engineering". Though I wonder if "venusforming" is also apt, keeping in mind what the results are said to be down the line.
api 8y ago
There was a scifi flick a while back about aliens from a hot world infiltrating government and industry to push policies that maximize carbon emissions. Forget the title.
- z0r 8y ago
  The Arrival: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arrival_(1996_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arrival_(1996_film)
maltalex 8y ago
Hanlon’s razor.
screye 8y ago
It's the lizard people isn't it ?

burlesona 8y ago

If North American culture could learn to build new small cities that didn’t need cars - as the old cities were built - and successfully market and sell them to today’s suburban crowd, we’d have a much better chance at stopping this. It kills me, though, just how impossible that would be.

aphextron 8y ago
>It kills me, though, just how impossible that would be. Is it though? It seems completely like a matter of will. I've thought about this exact idea before. How much VC would it take to build a small town? A couple billion? People are throwing gobs of money ten times that at absolute nonsense right now. Why couldn't we use it for meaningful progress instead?
- api 8y ago
  The allure of gambling is powerful. Everyone can estimate ROI on a planned community. Nobody can estimate ROI on hot air, so it "could" be "the next" whatever-the-last-thing-was. Nobody wants to be the one who passed on Facebook or Bitcoin in 2014 to invest in something boring like housing. Statistically huge pops like those are extremely rare. Someone wins in the casino but statistically it won't be you. Statistically you are better off making rational investments. But... FOMO and daydreams and... there was that one time! ... rat pushes lever, rat pushes lever...
- bleair 8y ago
  Aside a small number of exceptions US citizens hate using public transit themselves. This is reinforced by how public transit stations are always on the most undesirable real estate. If you’re successful you have a car, only the poor/unsuccessful/unusual don’t have 1 or more cars in their household.
- ibeckermayer 8y ago
  Good luck setting up a new government when the old government refuses to give up power...
analog31 8y ago

dawhizkid 8y ago

There's something about reading an article like this that makes all the small things I seem to worry about go away.