7 ms·

They were telling us Manhattan would be underwater by now 20 years ago.

by collyw 4y ago

xpe 4y ago
Please state your exact point. One narrow interpretation is that one particular study that you did not cite got it wrong. One broad interpretation is that we should not pay attention or give credence to the good faith estimates offered at the time. I get tired of snarky one-liners that don't say what they mean. They do not promote useful discussion. My comment here would not be necessary if you took a few minutes to elaborate about what you meant. Lastly: Estimates change. No model is perfect but some are useful.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  Not the OP, but I think the point is valid. I was born in the 70s, and my entire life I've been hearing climate alarmism - the end of the world is nigh (or just around the corner). No, really, this time it's for real! Donate here to stop it. Most of the "solutions" I've seen are worse than the problem. Recycling was a major con that no one wants to talk about. Carbon offset credits? Really? With the amount of alarmism and blatant opportunism in the space, it's pretty hard to sift through and focus on real, meaningful change. Like not wasting precious aquifer water on lawns. Simple stuff that would have real impact. Taxing the hell out of single use plastic water bottles. We've done it before. The anti CFC thing was a huge success. Seems like that should be a model to follow. Instead of pearl-clutching global alarmism, we should narrowly focus on concrete problems with real, measurable solutions, and address them one by one.
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    CFC's had a more or less drop-in replacement. Sadly we lack this for fossil fuels. And my entire life I've been hearing predictions of climate change that would start getting serious... right about now. And here we are. A bit ahead of schedule, really.
    - claytongulick 4y ago
      According to what measures? Sea level rise? The rate of increase hasn't changed. Actually it was highest during Lincoln's presidency. Droughts? Actually less severe and less frequent than 100 years ago. Severe weather? Wild fires? Also, pretty much unchanged or slightly decreased. Global temperatures? Sure, seem to be increasing moderately, but there's a ton of complication there. And we don't really know what the impact will be. I think it's better to stop handwringing over pessimistic alarmist models and to focus on solving real, concrete, addressable ecological problems.
      - russelg 4y ago
        In Australia, we've experienced all of the above within the last couple years. Worst droughts in 20+ years, biggest bushfire season ever, and now record breaking flooding.
        newrotik 4y ago
        This is not correct and proves the point made in the parent's comment. Australia had much more severe bush fires in the 70s [0]. Note that many Australian plants are have evolved to adapt to bush fires, which means they must have been a staple of Australian ecology for many millions of years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_Australian_bushfire_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_Australian_bus... in 1974, 290m acres burned vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bushfire_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bus... in 2020 which has a highest estimate of about 86m acres burned.
      - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
        Your assertions are trivially disproven - or put into their proper context - here: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators
        claytongulick 4y ago
        It's pretty strange how all of those metrics start at 1960, no? When you expand the window, the picture changes. Droughts and heat waves in the 1800s and 1930s were devastating killers, and some of the most severe in recorded history.
  - xpe 4y ago
    We can't talk about a point being valid or otherwise if it is not clear. Saying vague statements such as 'but they predicted X and it didn't happen ...' is nearly useless when it comes to understanding and predicting X.
  - xpe 4y ago
    > Instead of pearl-clutching global alarmism, we should narrowly focus on concrete problems with real, measurable solutions, and address them one by one. Many neoclassical economists would argue against this approach. Fix the incentives, they would say, and things will work out.
  - xpe 4y ago
    > Carbon offset credits? Really? Your argument is incredulity? Give your reasons. I don't want a vapid rant.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > Recycling was a major con that no one wants to talk about. Except for all the people who take climate change seriously, like the EU and China: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-ramp-up-recycling-incineration-new-plastic-pollution-push-2021-09-15/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-ramp-up-recycling-...
  - xpe 4y ago
    Trying to individually address negative effects of climate change individually would be ... (1) expensive (2) difficult to manage administratively (3) imbalanced across programs (4) unresponsive as conditions or impacts change (5) corruptible, since special interests could focus their efforts to carve out irrational and unfair exceptions for themselves (6) overly politicized during budgetary decisions ... compared to addressing common causes more broadly.
mcv 4y ago
How low is Manhattan? Projections have always been around 50-100 cm sea level rise for the next century.
CalRobert 4y ago
"They" also were telling us the US west would experience drought, fires, and increased heat waves.
promethetan 4y ago
The 2001 IPCC report projected 3-14cm of sea level rise in the period 1990-2025. Per wikipedia, actual sea level rise from 1993-2017 was 7.5cm. IPCC, see summary of Q3.9 on p9 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/syr/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/syr/

They were telling us Manhattan would be underwater by now 20 years ago.

by collyw 4y ago

They were telling us Manhattan would be underwater by now 20 years ago.

xpe 4y ago

Please state your exact point. One narrow interpretation is that one particular study that you did not cite got it wrong. One broad interpretation is that we should not pay attention or give credence to the good faith estimates offered at the time. I get tired of snarky one-liners that don't say what they mean. They do not promote useful discussion. My comment here would not be necessary if you took a few minutes to elaborate about what you meant. Lastly: Estimates change. No model is perfect but some are useful.

claytongulick 4y ago
Not the OP, but I think the point is valid. I was born in the 70s, and my entire life I've been hearing climate alarmism - the end of the world is nigh (or just around the corner). No, really, this time it's for real! Donate here to stop it. Most of the "solutions" I've seen are worse than the problem. Recycling was a major con that no one wants to talk about. Carbon offset credits? Really? With the amount of alarmism and blatant opportunism in the space, it's pretty hard to sift through and focus on real, meaningful change. Like not wasting precious aquifer water on lawns. Simple stuff that would have real impact. Taxing the hell out of single use plastic water bottles. We've done it before. The anti CFC thing was a huge success. Seems like that should be a model to follow. Instead of pearl-clutching global alarmism, we should narrowly focus on concrete problems with real, measurable solutions, and address them one by one.
- CalRobert 4y ago
  CFC's had a more or less drop-in replacement. Sadly we lack this for fossil fuels. And my entire life I've been hearing predictions of climate change that would start getting serious... right about now. And here we are. A bit ahead of schedule, really.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    According to what measures? Sea level rise? The rate of increase hasn't changed. Actually it was highest during Lincoln's presidency. Droughts? Actually less severe and less frequent than 100 years ago. Severe weather? Wild fires? Also, pretty much unchanged or slightly decreased. Global temperatures? Sure, seem to be increasing moderately, but there's a ton of complication there. And we don't really know what the impact will be. I think it's better to stop handwringing over pessimistic alarmist models and to focus on solving real, concrete, addressable ecological problems.
    - russelg 4y ago
      In Australia, we've experienced all of the above within the last couple years. Worst droughts in 20+ years, biggest bushfire season ever, and now record breaking flooding.
      - newrotik 4y ago
        This is not correct and proves the point made in the parent's comment. Australia had much more severe bush fires in the 70s [0]. Note that many Australian plants are have evolved to adapt to bush fires, which means they must have been a staple of Australian ecology for many millions of years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_Australian_bushfire_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_Australian_bus... in 1974, 290m acres burned vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bushfire_season https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bus... in 2020 which has a highest estimate of about 86m acres burned.
    - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
      Your assertions are trivially disproven - or put into their proper context - here: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators
      - claytongulick 4y ago
        It's pretty strange how all of those metrics start at 1960, no? When you expand the window, the picture changes. Droughts and heat waves in the 1800s and 1930s were devastating killers, and some of the most severe in recorded history.
- xpe 4y ago
  We can't talk about a point being valid or otherwise if it is not clear. Saying vague statements such as 'but they predicted X and it didn't happen ...' is nearly useless when it comes to understanding and predicting X.
- xpe 4y ago
  > Instead of pearl-clutching global alarmism, we should narrowly focus on concrete problems with real, measurable solutions, and address them one by one. Many neoclassical economists would argue against this approach. Fix the incentives, they would say, and things will work out.
- xpe 4y ago
  > Carbon offset credits? Really? Your argument is incredulity? Give your reasons. I don't want a vapid rant.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > Recycling was a major con that no one wants to talk about. Except for all the people who take climate change seriously, like the EU and China: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-ramp-up-recycling-incineration-new-plastic-pollution-push-2021-09-15/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-ramp-up-recycling-...
- xpe 4y ago
  Trying to individually address negative effects of climate change individually would be ... (1) expensive (2) difficult to manage administratively (3) imbalanced across programs (4) unresponsive as conditions or impacts change (5) corruptible, since special interests could focus their efforts to carve out irrational and unfair exceptions for themselves (6) overly politicized during budgetary decisions ... compared to addressing common causes more broadly.

mcv 4y ago

How low is Manhattan? Projections have always been around 50-100 cm sea level rise for the next century.

CalRobert 4y ago

"They" also were telling us the US west would experience drought, fires, and increased heat waves.

promethetan 4y ago

The 2001 IPCC report projected 3-14cm of sea level rise in the period 1990-2025. Per wikipedia, actual sea level rise from 1993-2017 was 7.5cm. IPCC, see summary of Q3.9 on p9 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/syr/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/syr/