3 ms·

Is there a certain point where we say “it’s going to be worse case climate scenario, let’s prepare?” I’m asking for a friend from a different planet …

jrsj 5y ago
It may be difficult to predict exactly what that scenario entails. Sure we have models etc but it’s still uncharted territory. Plus it’s not like there’s 1 magic threshold we can pass and then it doesn’t matter anymore — the main means of mitigation long term would still be the same as what is already being advocated for. Regarding something like trying to do something to reduce the average global temperature…the risks of getting something wrong attempting that likely outweigh the benefits.
fencepost 5y ago
If you have or are planning to have a family, you should likely be thinking about just this already on a personal and family level. Do what you can to reduce your footprint, but also do your long-term planning based on expectations of climate change. Among other things, don't buy property within anything considered 100-year or possibly even 500-year flood zones - climate change may mean that 100-year zones start getting flooded every 10 years or less, and that's not only going to impact you directly but the economics of recovery because you and all your never-expected-to-flood neighbors will be trying to recover. Also consider how the climate is expected to change over the next 50 years where you're considering settling - and what impact it'll have if it changes faster than that.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  Meh. I mean I have my family. We’ve bought property. I think the important thing is how careful the local government is about resiliency.
  - fencepost 5y ago
    Likely - you can probably get a decent idea of how vulnerable to climate change or other disasters just by looking at insurance costs both for homeowners and possibly for mortgages. Higher risk areas should already be showing signs of increased cost, because risk doesn't change overnight. A hundred year flood isn't one that happens every hundred years - it's one that should have a 1% chance of happening in any given year. The biggest issue with that is whether the flood maps (https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps) used for pricing are based only on historical data or if they account for climate change.
    - pyuser583 5y ago
      I just got done buying a house. Waterfront (vulnerability to flooding) real estate is worth a lot. Everyone wants to live by by the water. We had a once in a 1000 year flood two years ago. It changed nothing.
devdas 5y ago
That was about two decades ago. Anything worse is going to be pushing humanity towards extinction.
lucb1e 5y ago
There isn't, actually. Even if we would find ourselves in a +4°C world tomorrow (iirc that's the worst-case scenario for 2100), we would still be trying to reduce emissions because things don't get better. It appears to be cheaper to reduce emissions than to cope with the change it causes, partially because we have really large error bars on what changes it causes and the median already isn't pretty. At the same time, of course, we're also preparing. Iceland has broken ground on big port, expecting the warmer climate to make the Northeast Passage to become navigable year-round and more ships to pass by there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnafjord_Port https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnafjord_Port
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  Similarly, there's a reason Russia is making a big Arctic push with their military, to the extent of fielding modified T-80 tanks that will function in the deep cold, special wide-tracked transporters (which existed, but weren't generally armed), etc.

jrsj 5y ago

It may be difficult to predict exactly what that scenario entails. Sure we have models etc but it’s still uncharted territory. Plus it’s not like there’s 1 magic threshold we can pass and then it doesn’t matter anymore — the main means of mitigation long term would still be the same as what is already being advocated for. Regarding something like trying to do something to reduce the average global temperature…the risks of getting something wrong attempting that likely outweigh the benefits.

fencepost 5y ago

If you have or are planning to have a family, you should likely be thinking about just this already on a personal and family level. Do what you can to reduce your footprint, but also do your long-term planning based on expectations of climate change. Among other things, don't buy property within anything considered 100-year or possibly even 500-year flood zones - climate change may mean that 100-year zones start getting flooded every 10 years or less, and that's not only going to impact you directly but the economics of recovery because you and all your never-expected-to-flood neighbors will be trying to recover. Also consider how the climate is expected to change over the next 50 years where you're considering settling - and what impact it'll have if it changes faster than that.

pyuser583 5y ago
Meh. I mean I have my family. We’ve bought property. I think the important thing is how careful the local government is about resiliency.
- fencepost 5y ago
  Likely - you can probably get a decent idea of how vulnerable to climate change or other disasters just by looking at insurance costs both for homeowners and possibly for mortgages. Higher risk areas should already be showing signs of increased cost, because risk doesn't change overnight. A hundred year flood isn't one that happens every hundred years - it's one that should have a 1% chance of happening in any given year. The biggest issue with that is whether the flood maps (https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps) used for pricing are based only on historical data or if they account for climate change.
  - pyuser583 5y ago
    I just got done buying a house. Waterfront (vulnerability to flooding) real estate is worth a lot. Everyone wants to live by by the water. We had a once in a 1000 year flood two years ago. It changed nothing.

devdas 5y ago

That was about two decades ago. Anything worse is going to be pushing humanity towards extinction.

lucb1e 5y ago

There isn't, actually. Even if we would find ourselves in a +4°C world tomorrow (iirc that's the worst-case scenario for 2100), we would still be trying to reduce emissions because things don't get better. It appears to be cheaper to reduce emissions than to cope with the change it causes, partially because we have really large error bars on what changes it causes and the median already isn't pretty. At the same time, of course, we're also preparing. Iceland has broken ground on big port, expecting the warmer climate to make the Northeast Passage to become navigable year-round and more ships to pass by there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnafjord_Port https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnafjord_Port

aerostable_slug 5y ago
Similarly, there's a reason Russia is making a big Arctic push with their military, to the extent of fielding modified T-80 tanks that will function in the deep cold, special wide-tracked transporters (which existed, but weren't generally armed), etc.