4 ms·

Note that I haven't really researched this past personal perception, but: This year NC was hit by a couple of hurricanes, both more severe (and to be honest, 2

Note that I haven't really researched this past personal perception, but: This year NC was hit by a couple of hurricanes, both more severe (and to be honest, 2 more in frequency) than I ever remember growing up here, and for sure more than in the last 5-6 years. Also, does your second comment imply that one of the 18 hottest years was in 1843, or like, well before humans were practicing agriculture?

huffmsa 8y ago
I'm not implying anything. The Cretaceous was 10-15°F warmer than current temperatures. There was lots of life. ~1000BC was 2-4°F warmer than today, and there were plenty of humans doing just fine.
- Djvacto 8y ago
  I don't think the implication is that the Earth won't recover from our climate change issues (it will, we won't). So saying there was lots of life in the Cretaceous period doesn't really make sense, since I could also say there was plenty of life when organisms only existed in the sea. That doesn't exactly help our survival as a species, does it? It's also not about whether temperatures at this exact moment are higher or lower, but the trends and the rate at which those temperatures are changing. If we're looking at the graph (I'm using [1] linked below for reference), and in 1000BC it was warmer by 2-4°F, but the slope of the graph is way less pronounced than it is now, that's not exactly reassuring. [1] - http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm NOTE: I'm just using this graph to visualize the trends, and since it doesn't provide exact numbers on the axes I'm just looking at the overall shape of the graph.
- basch 8y ago
  I dont think youre really factoring in natural disasters, displacement, refugees. 4 out of 5 people displaced are in Asia right now. Even right now, Miami is underwater, and we are pumping it back out. Florida, New York, and California will become economic disasters far before 10 degrees. Of course we could build new spare cities inland now, for much cheaper, but of course we will wait for destruction before people will move. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/0...
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    > 4 out of 5 people displaced are in Asia right now. Your link does not support this assertion. Instead, it says that 80% of Asian people would be displaced in the next eight decade given a 3ºC rise in global temperature. > Even right now, Miami is underwater, and we are pumping it back out. Miami was built on a sandbar. A good portion of the west side of the city is built atop the Everglades - it was never exactly a safe place to build. Also, Miami is not "under water". You article refers to "king tides" - caused by the alignment of Earth, Luna, and Sol - which are exactly the same as they were at any point in human history, as measured against the mean tide. They're astronomical events, and are unrelated to climate. Unless you can show that "king tides" are objectively higher today than they were in the past, I don't see what they have to do with anything whatsoever. Measuring the height of king tides is exactly equivalent to measuring the mean sea level. > Of course we could build new spare cities inland now, for much cheaper, but of course we will wait for destruction before people will move. This doesn't even make sense to me. Why would building spare cities be cheaper now than in twenty years, or fifty? Remember the time scale we're talking about here; your article is projecting out eighty years. If you built these cities today, they'd be fifty to eighty years old before people needed them. How many urban dwellers live in fifty to eighty year old houses, especially without updates? Further, if we take for granted that there will be a need for spare cities in the future, it would make much more sense to build them as needed. That would spur growth in the construction industry, which in turn would lead to economies of scale. Construction technology would have additional time to improve as well, which means fewer resources used in building and more sustainable design to boot. In short... if this is going to be an issue, from a public policy perspective reaction to it should be just that - reaction. Have resources on hand, sure, but trying to move the populations of entire cities two generations ahead of an anticipated issue is folly.
    - basch 8y ago
      The subtitle of one of the sections is "The regional impact of these changes is highly uneven, with four out of five people affected living in Asia."
Someone 8y ago
If you go back in time far enough, there were many, many, way warmer years. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maxim... had such temperatures for about 200,000 years (the planet was essentially ice-free, according to that Wikipedia article)

huffmsa 8y ago

I'm not implying anything. The Cretaceous was 10-15°F warmer than current temperatures. There was lots of life. ~1000BC was 2-4°F warmer than today, and there were plenty of humans doing just fine.

Djvacto 8y ago
I don't think the implication is that the Earth won't recover from our climate change issues (it will, we won't). So saying there was lots of life in the Cretaceous period doesn't really make sense, since I could also say there was plenty of life when organisms only existed in the sea. That doesn't exactly help our survival as a species, does it? It's also not about whether temperatures at this exact moment are higher or lower, but the trends and the rate at which those temperatures are changing. If we're looking at the graph (I'm using [1] linked below for reference), and in 1000BC it was warmer by 2-4°F, but the slope of the graph is way less pronounced than it is now, that's not exactly reassuring. [1] - http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm NOTE: I'm just using this graph to visualize the trends, and since it doesn't provide exact numbers on the axes I'm just looking at the overall shape of the graph.
basch 8y ago
I dont think youre really factoring in natural disasters, displacement, refugees. 4 out of 5 people displaced are in Asia right now. Even right now, Miami is underwater, and we are pumping it back out. Florida, New York, and California will become economic disasters far before 10 degrees. Of course we could build new spare cities inland now, for much cheaper, but of course we will wait for destruction before people will move. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/0...
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  > 4 out of 5 people displaced are in Asia right now. Your link does not support this assertion. Instead, it says that 80% of Asian people would be displaced in the next eight decade given a 3ºC rise in global temperature. > Even right now, Miami is underwater, and we are pumping it back out. Miami was built on a sandbar. A good portion of the west side of the city is built atop the Everglades - it was never exactly a safe place to build. Also, Miami is not "under water". You article refers to "king tides" - caused by the alignment of Earth, Luna, and Sol - which are exactly the same as they were at any point in human history, as measured against the mean tide. They're astronomical events, and are unrelated to climate. Unless you can show that "king tides" are objectively higher today than they were in the past, I don't see what they have to do with anything whatsoever. Measuring the height of king tides is exactly equivalent to measuring the mean sea level. > Of course we could build new spare cities inland now, for much cheaper, but of course we will wait for destruction before people will move. This doesn't even make sense to me. Why would building spare cities be cheaper now than in twenty years, or fifty? Remember the time scale we're talking about here; your article is projecting out eighty years. If you built these cities today, they'd be fifty to eighty years old before people needed them. How many urban dwellers live in fifty to eighty year old houses, especially without updates? Further, if we take for granted that there will be a need for spare cities in the future, it would make much more sense to build them as needed. That would spur growth in the construction industry, which in turn would lead to economies of scale. Construction technology would have additional time to improve as well, which means fewer resources used in building and more sustainable design to boot. In short... if this is going to be an issue, from a public policy perspective reaction to it should be just that - reaction. Have resources on hand, sure, but trying to move the populations of entire cities two generations ahead of an anticipated issue is folly.
  - basch 8y ago
    The subtitle of one of the sections is "The regional impact of these changes is highly uneven, with four out of five people affected living in Asia."

Someone 8y ago

If you go back in time far enough, there were many, many, way warmer years. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maxim... had such temperatures for about 200,000 years (the planet was essentially ice-free, according to that Wikipedia article)