9 ms·

In my day to day work, if you showed me a noisy graph of a periodic signal measured over some 1/10th to 1/10000th of a typical cycle period, I would tell you th

In my day to day work, if you showed me a noisy graph of a periodic signal measured over some 1/10th to 1/10000th of a typical cycle period, I would tell you that you don't have nearly enough data to establish a trend. Especially when the underlying phenomena are chaotic, complex, impossible to model accurately, and incompletely understood. I also believe that the orthodoxy is overly negative. Who's to say that earth won't be better off with the newly arable northern latitudes? The OP seems to indicate a trend toward increasing rainfall as well - and plants thrive in increased CO2 environments. Then there is the supposed looming socioeconomic catastrophy as sea levels rise and displace coastal inhabitants. That also sounds like positive economic churn to me, especially if you go by the metric of GDP. This will be a gradual migration over 50-100 years and potentially a boon for various economies - jobs for infrastructure and construction. I'm just not sold on the idea that the world is ending (literally or figuratively) if we don't act.

nerdponx 5y ago
This will be a gradual migration over 50-100 years This is wishful thinking. potentially a boon for various economies - jobs for infrastructure and construction. This is the broken window fallacy.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Is it wishful thinking though? How exactly? Also how is the idea that this may be good for some economies a broken window fallacy?
  - allturtles 5y ago
    You seem to be imagining that the sea level will smoothly rise mm by mm over a century and that people will gradually and peacefully abandon the shoreline and move inland. It seems to me that a more likely outcome is that people will build defenses to protect existing cities (which are after all massive investments) and and that those defenses will work well right up until they catastrophically fail in a major storm (e.g. see Katrina).
    - xienze 5y ago
      > It seems to me that a more likely outcome is that people will build defenses to protect existing cities Honestly, this part right here is what makes me very skeptical about the magnitude of the problem as it’s communicated to the proles. We’ve heard countless times how Manhattan will essentially be underwater in XX years, a foregone conclusion, yet no one has made a serious proposal to build sea walls around it or other valuable coastal areas. That and the fact that the US is obsessed with importing countless numbers of foreign citizens who doubtless would produce far lower carbon footprints in their home countries than they would in the US. I mean it would only make sense to limit third world immigration to first world countries as long as possible if we’re concerned about carbon footprint, wouldn’t it? The population decrease in first world countries would be an added bonus as far as climate change goes. Yet we do the complete opposite. Curious!
      - nerdponx 5y ago
        foreign citizens who doubtless would produce far lower carbon footprints in their home countries than they would in the US. Citation needed?
        Dma54rhs 5y ago
        Americans have one of the highest co2 footprint per capita, it's well known and self explanatory.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      I'm not imagining anything, I'm only asking questions. Which you have not answered BTW.
      - allturtles 5y ago
        Surely when you say "This will be a gradual migration over 50-100 years" you are imagining a process by which this will happen. You didn't ask me any questions, you asked nerdponx, and I chose to join the conversation. What I posted above was my answer to "Is it wishful thinking though? How exactly?" But given the way are responding, I'm not sure you're interested in having an honest conversation.
porb121 5y ago
Have you read a single page of any IPCC report or any major climate science publication? The rhetoric you're spewing is uninformed and dangerous. Even if you are exactly right (and well-founded scientific arguments would suggest you are definitely not), you are speaking completely out of turn without any evidentiary basis. Like, "plants like CO2 so more CO2 might be good" is naive, elementary school reasoning. You might as well say "cardio exercise is good for the heart, so maybe medically inducing tachycardia is good for me". It's a complete non-sequitur with no empirical grounding.
- alea_iacta_est 5y ago
  > The rhetoric you're spewing is uninformed and dangerous. The self righteous people like you are way more dangerous in my humble opinion...
  - tjr225 5y ago
    Unfortunately for you we don't have time to care about your feelings. I've got a daughter who is going to have to live in this mess.
- sintaxi 5y ago
  The IPCC doesn't produce scientific research as you are implying. The purpose of the IPCC is to justify the basis of "global climate action" so their opinion has no relevancy when it comes to debating the scientific upsides and downsides of rising CO2. What few people seem to realize is that during the last ice age CO2 levels @180ppm was so low life on earth for mankind nearly collapsed - and we know CO2 levels on earth have reached 8000ppm in the past - so there is significant reason to be at ease with a rising CO2 considering how close to extinction level CO2 was a short while ago.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    > and we know CO2 levels on earth have reached 8000ppm in the past The last time that CO2 levels were around 8000ppm was also the time when the solar flux was several percent lower. So this argument doesn't really work the way you thought it worked.
randomopining 5y ago
Throws stuff out of equilibrium that our fragile human world depends on. Could stack with unleashing the trapped methane gases in Siberia, to form a positive feedback loop. Your response is so sophomoric, but not funny. You clearly don’t understand the tight relations of human systems to the environmental ecosystems.
- tryonenow 5y ago
  On the contrary, as an earth (not climate) scientist, I have an appreciation for the complexity of global climate and I think it's hubris to presume that we can predict with certainty that anthropogenic warming will be exclusively and certainly catastrophic for life on earth. I'm also well aware of the clathrate gun hypothesis, as well as evidence that it is proceeding both subsea and with thawing permafrost. There is no lack of proposed doomsday mechanisms - but there is an ideologically driven dearth of research into positive aspects of climate change. And given the overwhelming complexity of climate and climate change, it's foolish to presume that no benefit could come from a warmer planet.

nerdponx 5y ago

This will be a gradual migration over 50-100 years This is wishful thinking. potentially a boon for various economies - jobs for infrastructure and construction. This is the broken window fallacy.

betwixthewires 5y ago
Is it wishful thinking though? How exactly? Also how is the idea that this may be good for some economies a broken window fallacy?
- allturtles 5y ago
  You seem to be imagining that the sea level will smoothly rise mm by mm over a century and that people will gradually and peacefully abandon the shoreline and move inland. It seems to me that a more likely outcome is that people will build defenses to protect existing cities (which are after all massive investments) and and that those defenses will work well right up until they catastrophically fail in a major storm (e.g. see Katrina).
  - xienze 5y ago
    > It seems to me that a more likely outcome is that people will build defenses to protect existing cities Honestly, this part right here is what makes me very skeptical about the magnitude of the problem as it’s communicated to the proles. We’ve heard countless times how Manhattan will essentially be underwater in XX years, a foregone conclusion, yet no one has made a serious proposal to build sea walls around it or other valuable coastal areas. That and the fact that the US is obsessed with importing countless numbers of foreign citizens who doubtless would produce far lower carbon footprints in their home countries than they would in the US. I mean it would only make sense to limit third world immigration to first world countries as long as possible if we’re concerned about carbon footprint, wouldn’t it? The population decrease in first world countries would be an added bonus as far as climate change goes. Yet we do the complete opposite. Curious!
    - nerdponx 5y ago
      foreign citizens who doubtless would produce far lower carbon footprints in their home countries than they would in the US. Citation needed?
      - Dma54rhs 5y ago
        Americans have one of the highest co2 footprint per capita, it's well known and self explanatory.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    I'm not imagining anything, I'm only asking questions. Which you have not answered BTW.
    - allturtles 5y ago
      Surely when you say "This will be a gradual migration over 50-100 years" you are imagining a process by which this will happen. You didn't ask me any questions, you asked nerdponx, and I chose to join the conversation. What I posted above was my answer to "Is it wishful thinking though? How exactly?" But given the way are responding, I'm not sure you're interested in having an honest conversation.

porb121 5y ago

Have you read a single page of any IPCC report or any major climate science publication? The rhetoric you're spewing is uninformed and dangerous. Even if you are exactly right (and well-founded scientific arguments would suggest you are definitely not), you are speaking completely out of turn without any evidentiary basis. Like, "plants like CO2 so more CO2 might be good" is naive, elementary school reasoning. You might as well say "cardio exercise is good for the heart, so maybe medically inducing tachycardia is good for me". It's a complete non-sequitur with no empirical grounding.

alea_iacta_est 5y ago
> The rhetoric you're spewing is uninformed and dangerous. The self righteous people like you are way more dangerous in my humble opinion...
- tjr225 5y ago
  Unfortunately for you we don't have time to care about your feelings. I've got a daughter who is going to have to live in this mess.
sintaxi 5y ago
The IPCC doesn't produce scientific research as you are implying. The purpose of the IPCC is to justify the basis of "global climate action" so their opinion has no relevancy when it comes to debating the scientific upsides and downsides of rising CO2. What few people seem to realize is that during the last ice age CO2 levels @180ppm was so low life on earth for mankind nearly collapsed - and we know CO2 levels on earth have reached 8000ppm in the past - so there is significant reason to be at ease with a rising CO2 considering how close to extinction level CO2 was a short while ago.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > and we know CO2 levels on earth have reached 8000ppm in the past The last time that CO2 levels were around 8000ppm was also the time when the solar flux was several percent lower. So this argument doesn't really work the way you thought it worked.

randomopining 5y ago

Throws stuff out of equilibrium that our fragile human world depends on. Could stack with unleashing the trapped methane gases in Siberia, to form a positive feedback loop. Your response is so sophomoric, but not funny. You clearly don’t understand the tight relations of human systems to the environmental ecosystems.

tryonenow 5y ago
On the contrary, as an earth (not climate) scientist, I have an appreciation for the complexity of global climate and I think it's hubris to presume that we can predict with certainty that anthropogenic warming will be exclusively and certainly catastrophic for life on earth. I'm also well aware of the clathrate gun hypothesis, as well as evidence that it is proceeding both subsea and with thawing permafrost. There is no lack of proposed doomsday mechanisms - but there is an ideologically driven dearth of research into positive aspects of climate change. And given the overwhelming complexity of climate and climate change, it's foolish to presume that no benefit could come from a warmer planet.