6 ms·
It's going to happen faster than we've been told. I expect in 10 years global panic will set in.
by pstuart 7y ago
It's going to happen faster than we've been told. I expect in 10 years global panic will set in.
- all2 7y agoCan you support this opinion?
- pstuart 7y agoNope. I'd love to be proven wrong.
- radford-neal 7y agoI'm baffled. You "expect" something that you say you have no reason to expect, and you hope this expectation is wrong. Is this some new meaning of "expect" that I'm not familiar with? Or do you follow a psychological strategy of expecting bad things so that you'll always be pleasantly surprised?
- WillPostForFood 7y agoIt is a human phenomenon, that has religious and secular expressions. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/psychology-reveals-the-comforts-of-the-apocalypse/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/psychology... ...some apocalyptic believers find the idea that the end is nigh to be validating. Individuals with a history of traumatic experiences, for example, may be fatalistic. For these people, finding a group of like-minded fatalists is reassuring. There may also be comfort in being able to attribute doom to some larger cosmic order—such as an ancient Mayan prophecy. This kind of mythology removes any sense of individual responsibility.
- rriepe 7y agoKinda sounds like you're calling AGW a doomsday cult.
- WillPostForFood 7y agoNo, but there are doomsday cultish acolytes of AGW.
- pstuart 7y agoThank you for your diagnosis, but I can explain. Reports coming out now are indicating that shit's getting real faster than was modeled. Models are educated guesses at realty; are the models guaranteed 100% accurate? No, and I'm (just) guessing that the inaccuracies are in the conservative realm. I do not find it validating, I find it terrifying. I worry for my kids future. Anybody who isn't worried about what's happening now is a fool.
- tito 7y agoGreenland's massive ice melt wasn't supposed to happen until 2070. It seems even the scientific predictions can be too conservative. The changing climate isn't a linear system, it's more like a step function. Once the ice melts it's much harder to get back. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottsnowden/2019/08/16/greenlands-massive-ice-melt-wasnt-supposed-to-happen-until-2070/#73bd18274894 https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottsnowden/2019/08/16/greenla...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- all2 7y agoIt is interesting to note that just about 1000 years ago the Vikings were growing barley in Greenland [0]. > “Now we can see that the Vikings could grow corn, and this was very important for their nourishment and survival,” Barley seems to do ok in late Spring conditions in the NE United States [1]. I'm not certain you could grow barley or corn in Tundra conditions. I bring this up when people mention warming global conditions because the planet has, in the past, been much warmer than it is now. [0] https://sciencenordic.com/agriculture-archaeology-denmark/vikings-grew-barley-in-greenland/1447746 https://sciencenordic.com/agriculture-archaeology-denmark/vi... [1] https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/ccpg_horde.pdf https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/ccpg_horde.pdf
- Sharlin 7y agoIt was a well-known and understood roughly 300-year localized warmer period[1] in Western Europe and the North Atlantic. The planet has been globally warmer than what it is now but that was long before H. sapiens and has nothing to do with the Vikings or barley. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
- phkahler 7y agoIt's part of a natural cycle. We were never going to stop it anyway. The real means to stop it will not be talked about until the serious changes start happening and the entire world is in panic.
- throwaway5752 7y agoWell, extremes are what will cause most pain. Reality is running ahead of and worse than models, and the models seem to underestimate extrema https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08745-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08745-6
- tejtm 7y agothere are many arguments, some unfortunately rabid ... this one feels well put together. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
- sambull 7y agoMainly because that means there is finite growth in the economy, and we've built a ponzi scheme of sorts at this point. It's a hard pill to swallow, that we can't just grow forever.
- maxerickson 7y agoThe thing is, we can grow until we can't anymore. Preemptively choosing to struggle with what we had yesterday is not a good response to the idea that there is a limit. A good short term thing would be to more clearly understand the real costs of the things we do today. What is the long term environmental impact and so on.
- lumberjack 7y agoIf you adhere by the definition of wealth that pg lays out in his famous essay, then it is not true that there is finite growth. The more accurate statement would be that there is a limit to the amount of consumption and consumerism that we are allowed to indulge ourselves in. In our present economy that might more or less be what everyone thinks growth is. But we could have other kinds of economic growth that do not impose a cost on our environment.
- opportune 7y agoWe still have a long way to go to become more efficient, which is a way to continue growth without increasing our burden on the planet. Of course the issue there is that efficiency gains can only go so far, and you run into diminishing returns rather quickly. Also, economic growth does not necessarily rely on increased production of physical goods. If people stopped paying for physical toys in lieu of software, for instance, the economy very well could grow while the physical footprint of the average person decreased (all else remaining the same). If people preferred experiential entertainment such as movies, escape rooms, etc more than e.g. boating, that could also result in economic growth while physical consumption of goods decreases. But, while we can continue to grow economically without increasing physical consumption (all else being equal), the elephant in the room is that a very large portion of the world does not live a life even remotely similar to that of a wealthy, developed country resident wrt physical resource consumption. So even if we in rich countries maintained our resource usage, global demand for physical resources will continue to grow rapidly as other parts of the world develop. So are we willing to consign huge swathes of the globe to eternal poverty, or will we actively decrease our resource consumption?
- sunseb 7y agohttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEwH4nTUcAE-Q7e.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEwH4nTUcAE-Q7e.jpg
- danso 7y agoStrange. You seem to have posted a doctored image. The fact that your "1977" image uses modern typography should have been an obvious giveaway to you before you posted it. https://apnews.com/afs:Content:5755221200 https://apnews.com/afs:Content:5755221200 > AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The Time cover labeled in social posts as coming from 1977 is actually a cover from 2007, with the image altered to change the title from “The Global Warming Survival Guide” to “How to Survive the Coming Ice Age,” Time magazine archives show.
- sunseb 7y agoThanks! I didn't know what! What about the 1979 image?
- adjkant 7y agoIs there any reason you're relying on others to do a basic google for you? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-co...
- anatoly 7y agohttps://climatecrocks.com/2013/06/07/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/ https://climatecrocks.com/2013/06/07/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-...
- mikestew 7y agoThis is going to come off as impolite, which is not my intent. But I don’t how else to effectively drive the point home: one doesn’t post drivel and then it’s up to everyone else to disprove your convenient narrative. Ain’t nobody got time for that, take responsibility for what you post.
- 7y ago
- stale2002 7y agoThis is not what the IPCC believes. The effects how over the course of decades. The world is not going to end in 10 years.
- jokoon 7y agoI think it will happen sooner than that. Once you have a 3 days heatwave, it's bad. If they occur during summer and the next summer, and if they last for 1 week or more, several times per summer, people will not talk about it, but feel it and understand that global warming is settling in and will not go away. The problem is that the temperature increase can be sudden and difficult to anticipate. A heatwave can also kill a lot of people (the elderly, the young, people will fragile health, and also people who don't prepare or don't listen to warnings). You're right that in 10 years there are strong chances for a global panic, but if crops yields are bad it can also have fast consequences. It just hope the wakeup calls will make people react swiftly and as soon as possible. I'd rather have a big heatwave that gives enough political capital to act and do things, than a slow and creeping climate change where nothing is done and it becomes too late.
- nojvek 7y agoI hope Californians are at least feeling it. Those wild fires every year are kind of unusual and are getting intense every year.
- iikoolpp 7y agoEverything is only going to get worse