4 ms·

> I haven't read anything yet that caused me to think it's a particularly large problem. Then you haven't read much. I suggest looking into the North Atlantic

> I haven't read anything yet that caused me to think it's a particularly large problem. Then you haven't read much. I suggest looking into the North Atlantic current, ENSO, ocean acidification, and long term forecasts of glacier formation, drought, fire, flooding, tropical storms, heat waves, and other extreme weather phenomena. Just skimming through the first few pages of the -- extremely conservative -- IPCC report should upend your current notion that global warming "may well end up being a net benefit". Global warming does not simply mean the world uniformly heats up a degree. It means more energy is injected into the atmosphere, adding additional chaos and instability to an already chaotic and unpredictable system. This will mean more extreme weather, steep reduction in fish stocks and agricultural productivity that will shock the food system, and mass migrations of people unlucky enough to be born in those regions most badly affected. To believe that global warming -- literally a global problem -- isn't "a particularly large problem" is akin to saying covid is "a bit of a cold". That statement spectacularly underestimates the scope and scale of the threat, and ignores the chorus of experts who have spent the last half-century being depressingly accurate (or even conservative) in all their forecasts. You are "ok with 1.5C" because you don't understand what it means.

radu_floricica 5y ago
I did read the IPCC report a while back, or at least the summary. It's surprisingly common sense, given how it's described. Change is coming, some of it bad, a minority pretty bad. There are quite a lot "pretty bad" things out there.
- monodeldiablo 5y ago
  Cool! Now consider that almost every previous cycle of the IPCC report has missed its forecasted marks because it was too conservative. The IPCC report is the toned down, let's-not-rock-the-boat version of the scientific community's view regarding the unfolding climate disaster. It is an optimistic set of forecasts, with loads of hedging.
sjwalter 5y ago
> This will mean more ... One thing particularly strange about climate change alarmists is that they are just so damn sure of all these horrible outcomes that are absolutely sure to happen. You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure. I live near Glacier National Park. In the early 2000s, some climate change model predicted the glaciers would be gone by 2020. All the entrance signs were modified to state this to every single visitor: Enjoy 'em while they last, friends, but climate change will render these glaciers puddles by just 2020! Well, come 2020, the glaciers are still right there. A bit smaller. But also nowhere near gone. Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure.
- monodeldiablo 5y ago
  > One thing particularly strange about climate change alarmists is that they are just so damn sure of all these horrible outcomes that are absolutely sure to happen. It's a shame you didn't quote more of my first sentence there. Let me help: "This will mean more extreme weather..." Guess what 2021 featured? A 1000 year heat wave in the oh-so-temperate Pacific Northwest, at temperatures previously considered physically impossible in that region. And a few months prior? Record-setting cold wiped out the grid in Houston and plunged a big chunk of Texas into survival mode. If you're looking for an all-at-once calamity to herald the coming of Climate Doom, you're gonna have to watch the movies. Because what all the science clearly indicates is a gradual, inexorable increase in extreme phenomena. > You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure. I mean, we're having an informal discussion on the internet, where scientific jargon and careful discussion of error bars gets in the way of clear communication. But I can still be pretty damn confident of those predictions because climate change isn't some far-off future possibility. It's unfolding all around us, as we speak. The increase in extreme weather? It's been going on for 50 years. Rising temperatures? Droughts? Floods? Fires? They're all on the upswing and have been for long enough that it's impossible at this point to attribute them all to some statistical anomaly. Let's put it another way. If you catch me playing with matches on the couch and exclaim, "You'll burn the house down!", I probably have some cause to accuse you of being overly dramatic. If, on the other hand, the house is already on fire, my protestations that "You can't be so cocksure it'll be uncomfortable to live in the house" sound pretty ridiculous. > I live near Glacier National Park. Cool. That's an anecdote. Not data. Do you have any actual data to support your stance that climate scientists -- climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, etc -- the world over are "alarmists"? > Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure. Straw man. Nobody's claiming it'll be the end of the world. The planet will be just fine. Humans will simply find it a more inhospitable place in which to live. Which is what I said. And all those "shrill screeching forecasting failures" from the last 30 years have, on average, been too conservative, forecasting slower warming. You just haven't noticed because you don't want to believe it might be true. I understand the emotional reaction. It's the same thing that compels people to refuse to believe that covid exists or vaccines work. Doesn't mean it's a logical or accurate stance, though.

radu_floricica 5y ago

I did read the IPCC report a while back, or at least the summary. It's surprisingly common sense, given how it's described. Change is coming, some of it bad, a minority pretty bad. There are quite a lot "pretty bad" things out there.

monodeldiablo 5y ago
Cool! Now consider that almost every previous cycle of the IPCC report has missed its forecasted marks because it was too conservative. The IPCC report is the toned down, let's-not-rock-the-boat version of the scientific community's view regarding the unfolding climate disaster. It is an optimistic set of forecasts, with loads of hedging.

sjwalter 5y ago

> This will mean more ... One thing particularly strange about climate change alarmists is that they are just so damn sure of all these horrible outcomes that are absolutely sure to happen. You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure. I live near Glacier National Park. In the early 2000s, some climate change model predicted the glaciers would be gone by 2020. All the entrance signs were modified to state this to every single visitor: Enjoy 'em while they last, friends, but climate change will render these glaciers puddles by just 2020! Well, come 2020, the glaciers are still right there. A bit smaller. But also nowhere near gone. Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure.

monodeldiablo 5y ago
> One thing particularly strange about climate change alarmists is that they are just so damn sure of all these horrible outcomes that are absolutely sure to happen. It's a shame you didn't quote more of my first sentence there. Let me help: "This will mean more extreme weather..." Guess what 2021 featured? A 1000 year heat wave in the oh-so-temperate Pacific Northwest, at temperatures previously considered physically impossible in that region. And a few months prior? Record-setting cold wiped out the grid in Houston and plunged a big chunk of Texas into survival mode. If you're looking for an all-at-once calamity to herald the coming of Climate Doom, you're gonna have to watch the movies. Because what all the science clearly indicates is a gradual, inexorable increase in extreme phenomena. > You're forecasting, dude. You don't have a crystal ball. Yet your statements, and those of all the alarmists, are those of the totally cocksure. I mean, we're having an informal discussion on the internet, where scientific jargon and careful discussion of error bars gets in the way of clear communication. But I can still be pretty damn confident of those predictions because climate change isn't some far-off future possibility. It's unfolding all around us, as we speak. The increase in extreme weather? It's been going on for 50 years. Rising temperatures? Droughts? Floods? Fires? They're all on the upswing and have been for long enough that it's impossible at this point to attribute them all to some statistical anomaly. Let's put it another way. If you catch me playing with matches on the couch and exclaim, "You'll burn the house down!", I probably have some cause to accuse you of being overly dramatic. If, on the other hand, the house is already on fire, my protestations that "You can't be so cocksure it'll be uncomfortable to live in the house" sound pretty ridiculous. > I live near Glacier National Park. Cool. That's an anecdote. Not data. Do you have any actual data to support your stance that climate scientists -- climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, etc -- the world over are "alarmists"? > Failed predictions and shrill screeching forecasting failures stack up over and over from all the alarmists and yet still they, as you do here, fail to have any humility, any sense that, hey, maybe you don't know it's the end of the world for sure. Straw man. Nobody's claiming it'll be the end of the world. The planet will be just fine. Humans will simply find it a more inhospitable place in which to live. Which is what I said. And all those "shrill screeching forecasting failures" from the last 30 years have, on average, been too conservative, forecasting slower warming. You just haven't noticed because you don't want to believe it might be true. I understand the emotional reaction. It's the same thing that compels people to refuse to believe that covid exists or vaccines work. Doesn't mean it's a logical or accurate stance, though.