5 ms·

Which seems to shore up the hypothesis here a little bit more. The Little Ice Age is a really interesting phenomenon to me in terms of climate study. We really

Which seems to shore up the hypothesis here a little bit more. The Little Ice Age is a really interesting phenomenon to me in terms of climate study. We really take the stability of our climate for granted. I'm sure future generations will not have that luxury.

tasogare 6y ago
More time to the beach, less energy spent on heating, easier crops farming, embrace the decline.
- jagger27 6y ago
  Don’t forget to also embrace the more frequent and devastating forest fires, droughts, floods, and extreme weather!
  - i_haz_rabies 6y ago
    not to mention worsening air quality, ocean acidification, rising ocean levels, and massive loss of biodiversity!!
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Not to mention the collapse of global civilization!
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    I do wonder for some of these disasters, like forest fires and floods, if they’re caused in large part by humans settling in more places. Not caused by the people settling and developing those areas but by virtue of settling places where these things happen and thus becoming a disaster because people are there.
    - shakezula 6y ago
      Forest fires and floods are a tiny, tiny sliver of the problem. Collapse of oceanic fisheries, decimation of the Amazon, and the melting of the ice caps are orders of magnitude more damaging and pressing matters. The fires and floods are not the problem, they are the symptom.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  I’m sure you will be in favor of providing support to those of the hundreds of millions of climate migrants who come to your major cities?
  - throwaway99x99 6y ago
    Don't be sarcastic.[0] Beyond that, it's a bit hyberbolic to assert hundreds of millions of any sort of migrants. (Climate change seems to be this generation's nuclear winter.) 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - shakezula 6y ago
      > (Climate change seems to be this generation's nuclear winter.) We are on the brink of major collapse of several ecosystems. It’s diminishing and disingenuous to compare that to fears of nuclear winter from a prior generation.
  - shakezula 6y ago
    I’m not the person this was directed at, but i wanted to chime in anyway. I would absolutely be in favor of paying for those refugees care with my tax dollars, especially if they were paying taxes, too, which is exactly what the US should be doing with any and all immigrants. We need cooperation, and we need accountability. This planet is a collective responsibility of ours. It’s not one country’s problem.
- prawn 6y ago
  This brought to mind fires in Australia a year or so ago where townspeople literally fled to the beach and stood in/near the water to escape fire. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50952253 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50952253 More time at the beach out of necessity, less energy spent on heating because everything was on fire, no crops to bother farming!
- randomopining 6y ago
  “Embrace the decline” posted from a comfy Herman Miller chair in a heated/air conditioned room, after eating a seamless delivered burrito.
wsc981 6y ago
> We really take the stability of our climate for granted. I'm sure future generations will not have that luxury. But the climate was never stable. I don't understand why there is this inherent want of people to keep the climate as it is. There can be huge ecologic events (e.g. volcanic eruption, meteor impact, ...) that could impact the climate much more and much quicker than what human produced carbon emissions can achieve right now. Isn't it a better idea to learn to adapt to climate change as opposed to trying to constrain the climate within some range we currently regard as ideal? And just for clarity: I am not saying we should do nothing with regards to CO2 emissions. But I do feel we are very impractical at the moment due to the unwillingness to use nuclear energy, which seems the most practical source of CO2 free energy to me. But at the same time it might be a good idea to be more prepared for climate changes and invest in building higher and stronger dikes in areas with huge populations, better systems to drain excess rainwater from cities and the like.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cloverich 6y ago
  Two thoughts. One strong agree on nuclear, though generally being against nuclear probably also entails not understanding the magnitude of our co2 issues (eg unless you want to reduce quality of life drastically, nuclear now). But re adapting to changing climate, the issue is we can’t adapt to something like the predicated changes, a significant chunk of the earth would become unlivable. Mass migration and food supply changes abound. unless by adapt you mean “mass death” which historically had been how we’ve (life) adapted. But if you are against your family dying, younn b probably want to figure out this climate thing ;)
  - shakezula 6y ago
    It's not just that we can't adapt either - it's the time scales we're working with. We might not have time to adapt before literally millions of people are displaced or even die.

tasogare 6y ago

More time to the beach, less energy spent on heating, easier crops farming, embrace the decline.

jagger27 6y ago
Don’t forget to also embrace the more frequent and devastating forest fires, droughts, floods, and extreme weather!
- i_haz_rabies 6y ago
  not to mention worsening air quality, ocean acidification, rising ocean levels, and massive loss of biodiversity!!
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Not to mention the collapse of global civilization!
- nemo44x 6y ago
  I do wonder for some of these disasters, like forest fires and floods, if they’re caused in large part by humans settling in more places. Not caused by the people settling and developing those areas but by virtue of settling places where these things happen and thus becoming a disaster because people are there.
  - shakezula 6y ago
    Forest fires and floods are a tiny, tiny sliver of the problem. Collapse of oceanic fisheries, decimation of the Amazon, and the melting of the ice caps are orders of magnitude more damaging and pressing matters. The fires and floods are not the problem, they are the symptom.
dwaltrip 6y ago
I’m sure you will be in favor of providing support to those of the hundreds of millions of climate migrants who come to your major cities?
- throwaway99x99 6y ago
  Don't be sarcastic.[0] Beyond that, it's a bit hyberbolic to assert hundreds of millions of any sort of migrants. (Climate change seems to be this generation's nuclear winter.) 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - shakezula 6y ago
    > (Climate change seems to be this generation's nuclear winter.) We are on the brink of major collapse of several ecosystems. It’s diminishing and disingenuous to compare that to fears of nuclear winter from a prior generation.
- shakezula 6y ago
  I’m not the person this was directed at, but i wanted to chime in anyway. I would absolutely be in favor of paying for those refugees care with my tax dollars, especially if they were paying taxes, too, which is exactly what the US should be doing with any and all immigrants. We need cooperation, and we need accountability. This planet is a collective responsibility of ours. It’s not one country’s problem.
prawn 6y ago
This brought to mind fires in Australia a year or so ago where townspeople literally fled to the beach and stood in/near the water to escape fire. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50952253 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50952253 More time at the beach out of necessity, less energy spent on heating because everything was on fire, no crops to bother farming!
randomopining 6y ago
“Embrace the decline” posted from a comfy Herman Miller chair in a heated/air conditioned room, after eating a seamless delivered burrito.

wsc981 6y ago

> We really take the stability of our climate for granted. I'm sure future generations will not have that luxury. But the climate was never stable. I don't understand why there is this inherent want of people to keep the climate as it is. There can be huge ecologic events (e.g. volcanic eruption, meteor impact, ...) that could impact the climate much more and much quicker than what human produced carbon emissions can achieve right now. Isn't it a better idea to learn to adapt to climate change as opposed to trying to constrain the climate within some range we currently regard as ideal? And just for clarity: I am not saying we should do nothing with regards to CO2 emissions. But I do feel we are very impractical at the moment due to the unwillingness to use nuclear energy, which seems the most practical source of CO2 free energy to me. But at the same time it might be a good idea to be more prepared for climate changes and invest in building higher and stronger dikes in areas with huge populations, better systems to drain excess rainwater from cities and the like.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cloverich 6y ago
Two thoughts. One strong agree on nuclear, though generally being against nuclear probably also entails not understanding the magnitude of our co2 issues (eg unless you want to reduce quality of life drastically, nuclear now). But re adapting to changing climate, the issue is we can’t adapt to something like the predicated changes, a significant chunk of the earth would become unlivable. Mass migration and food supply changes abound. unless by adapt you mean “mass death” which historically had been how we’ve (life) adapted. But if you are against your family dying, younn b probably want to figure out this climate thing ;)
- shakezula 6y ago
  It's not just that we can't adapt either - it's the time scales we're working with. We might not have time to adapt before literally millions of people are displaced or even die.