7 ms·

I would like the glaciers and iceshelves in the polar regions to stay where they are rather than causing a rise in Ocean levels that in turn displaces hundreds

I would like the glaciers and iceshelves in the polar regions to stay where they are rather than causing a rise in Ocean levels that in turn displaces hundreds of millions of people. Scotland's snow cover is an indicator of what's happening in this planet

verisimi 4y ago
But, if the climate is warmer, we would live more comfortably, not to forget that we could grow more food. I'm basically saying, change in itself is not a terrible occurrence - there are pros and cons. Stasis or no change, is arguably worse, imo. Must we keep things the same, or can we develop our adaptability? With all our tech, we should be able to manage things better than ever, if we want. Change is not a disaster.
- danparsonson 4y ago
  The climate being warmer on average is perhaps better understood as the climate being more energetic. More heat energy in the atmosphere means more and stronger storms, greater flooding, heat waves, and so on. It's not just that things are bit more comfortable now. We can't grow more food when one food growing area is innundated or torn up by hurricanes while another is crushed by drought.
  - pcrh 4y ago
    >The climate being warmer on average is perhaps better understood as the climate being more energetic. Thanks for this perspective; otherwise I hadn't previously understood why the weather was expected to become more severe with global warming!
  - bequanna 4y ago
- mmmpop 4y ago
  I moved north because fuck the heat, so speak for yourself nerd.
  - verisimi 4y ago
    Fair enough, but most people prefer a warmer climate, where it is easier to live, do outdoors pursuits, grow food, use less resources (for heating). But each to their own!
    - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      Take away air conditioning and most people with the means would move to a more temperate location.
    - Shish2k 4y ago
      > easier to live, do outdoors pursuits, grow food, use less resources (for heating) Have you seen… the desert?
  - incrudible 4y ago
    Moving as a form of adaption towards changing environmental conditions? You might be on to something here! Are scientists aware of this method?
    - status200 4y ago
      Gotta find a new pile of sand to thrust your head into at some point, right?
    - mmmpop 4y ago
      No you dipshit I reject your premise.
- rainsford 4y ago
  The fact that change in the abstract can be good or bad doesn't mean specific changes don't make things worse. But maybe more importantly, the rate of change makes a huge difference. If change happens too rapidly, as human driven climate change seems to be, you don't have time to sufficiently adapt to take advantage of the new pros or offset the cons. Climate change will make a lot of places less habitable while making some places more so. Great, it balances out, right? Except most people live in the places that are habitable now, and if the habitable areas change overnight (in relative terms), billions of people are going to suddenly be living in the wrong places. Natural climate change over tens of thousands of years would give populations plenty of time to migrate, as has happened in the past. Human driven climate change over 100 years will not.
  - verisimi 4y ago
    If, will, might, etc. But have you seen anything that resembles a rapid change? Putting aside the media alarmists, I have seen nothing that can't be explained as change. The beaches of my childhood are still there at the same height etc. Yes there have been fires (that I put down to forest mismanagement) and floods which will occur if you build on flood plains and if you cut down trees. So, I don't see rapid change. You should re watch al gore's original inconvenient truth film and see how well that has aged. He sounds like the proverbial boy who shouting fire in the cinema. Given his eco-investments, his actions are really better explained as a marketing exercise to will line his pockets.
    - pjc50 4y ago
      It's not a rapid change. It's a slow change from about a century ago to projections about a century in the future. Another directly-observable-by-laymen example is the start of cherry blossom season: https://www.sciencealert.com/japan-s-cherry-blossoms-burst-into-color-sooner-than-they-have-in-1-200-years https://www.sciencealert.com/japan-s-cherry-blossoms-burst-i...
- electrondood 4y ago
  This comment is profoundly ignorant of the nature of anthropogenic climate change. It doesn't mean that "things will get warmer and happier for everyone." It means severe water shortages, mass migration of climate refugees, xenophobia and the resulting political turmoil, huge increases in lung cancer from wildfire smoke, frequent flooding, destruction of infrastructure to the tune of billions of dollars, mass extinction of species, etc. We don't even know what happens when certain feedback loops get triggered and a flywheel accelerant effect begins.
incrudible 4y ago
- User23 4y ago
  Given how generally pro-migration and immigration this site is, it’s odd that this is the concern about climate change.
  - Buldak 4y ago
    This is like saying that people who think we should welcome asylum seekers should also welcome war and other calamities that make asylum necessary.
    - convolvatron 4y ago
      I heard you like to travel...so I destroyed your home
- kennywinker 4y ago
  I think you’re severely underestimating the chaos, war, and suffering that hundreds of millions of people moving will cause. But if that’s not enough - ecosystems will collapse causing outbreaks of pests that would normally be kept in check, water will become scarcer and aquifers will empty, all of which will result in food shortages and famines. As an example, we could see an end to seafood in our lifetime. It’s not outside the realm of possible - ocean acidification is one of the consequences of increased co2, and it’s already killing off shellfish. It’s unclear how far out into the food web a lack of shellfish would cascade. Ocean scientists talk about a world where the oceans are full of jellyfish and not much else. I’ve eaten jellyfish - it’s not good.
  - incrudible 4y ago
    I don't see that people moving further inlands over the span of several decades is going to cause dramatic conflict, but feel free to catastrophize, otherwise climate change would be very boring. > As an example, we could see an end to seafood in our lifetime. [citation needed]
nemo44x 4y ago
The thing is, it happens very slowly. Over many decades and even centuries. It’s not like within a couple years suddenly all the coasts move. Not even in the most aggressive models which are likely wrong anyhow. It’s a slow and gradual process which means we can actively make progress against it.
- EGreg 4y ago
  Israel doesn’t seem to agree with your assessment, they say that they don’t have anything in place for the current speed… what about other more lowlying areas? https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/climate-change/2022-09-20/ty-article-magazine/.premium/facing-rapid-rise-in-sea-levels-israel-could-lose-large-parts-of-its-coastline/00000183-577f-d3b0-a9bf-f77f87500000?_amp=true https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/climate-change/20...
wrycoder 4y ago
It's an indication of what is happening in Scotland. Scotland would be very sensitive to small changes in the Gulf Stream, which are chaotic in nature. As far as the planet goes, the global troposphere's temperature has increased by only about 0.52C over the last forty years, as measured by satellite.[0] We are still coming out of both a major ice age, from 15,000 years ago, and a minor ice age, from 250 years ago, so some warming is expected. These changes are largely due to the Earth's orbit and inclination, and possibly to changes in the Sun's activity. The Earth is currently in a cold period compared to the historical record, though at times in the remote past the oceans have frozen almost completely.[1] There is always regional climate change. Deserts become wetter, then drier. The North Pole warms more rapidly than the South Pole, and then the opposite occurs. [0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2022-0-24-deg-c/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/uah-global-temperature-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth#Modern_conditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth#...
- scaramanga 4y ago
  What you are describing is not "climate change" but "climate staying the same". Climate change refers to the climate moving in to a new state, not the usual oscillation between ice-ages and interglacials which is a state the climate has been in during the whole period humans existed (actually upright apes of all kinds, modern humans haven't been around that long anyway). Your first link is a well known climate denialist who also believes in other bunk such as intelligent design.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    Roy Spencer is skeptical about the more extreme climate predictions that arise from the computer models. If you read his work, you'll find out that he is a climate "luke-warmer" (like me): he believes that the global climate is gradually warming, but it's not yet clear how much of a part we humans actually play, or that the observed warming is detrimental. Spencer is responsible for making actual satellite temperature measurements: Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. "Climate Change" has been the new term for "Global Warming" for some time now. It is used because it's more flexible - most any change can be reported in an alarmist way. If you want to discuss the greening of the Sahara, that's local climate change. If you want to discuss the global warming of the troposphere, possibly due to increased global levels of CO2, that's "Global Warming", but "Lets call that Climate Change now". All the international concern and science activity is about the latter, not local climate change. I'm pointing out that the Global Warming forecasts are based on a large number of computer models, not on measurements of actual global reality. You'll notice that the IPCC is gradually abandoning its most extreme models, since their predictions have not actually occurred. It appears that the computer models and reality will converge at around a 1.3C per century increase, starting from 1980.

verisimi 4y ago

But, if the climate is warmer, we would live more comfortably, not to forget that we could grow more food. I'm basically saying, change in itself is not a terrible occurrence - there are pros and cons. Stasis or no change, is arguably worse, imo. Must we keep things the same, or can we develop our adaptability? With all our tech, we should be able to manage things better than ever, if we want. Change is not a disaster.

danparsonson 4y ago
The climate being warmer on average is perhaps better understood as the climate being more energetic. More heat energy in the atmosphere means more and stronger storms, greater flooding, heat waves, and so on. It's not just that things are bit more comfortable now. We can't grow more food when one food growing area is innundated or torn up by hurricanes while another is crushed by drought.
- pcrh 4y ago
  >The climate being warmer on average is perhaps better understood as the climate being more energetic. Thanks for this perspective; otherwise I hadn't previously understood why the weather was expected to become more severe with global warming!
- bequanna 4y ago
mmmpop 4y ago
I moved north because fuck the heat, so speak for yourself nerd.
- verisimi 4y ago
  Fair enough, but most people prefer a warmer climate, where it is easier to live, do outdoors pursuits, grow food, use less resources (for heating). But each to their own!
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    Take away air conditioning and most people with the means would move to a more temperate location.
  - Shish2k 4y ago
    > easier to live, do outdoors pursuits, grow food, use less resources (for heating) Have you seen… the desert?
- incrudible 4y ago
  Moving as a form of adaption towards changing environmental conditions? You might be on to something here! Are scientists aware of this method?
  - status200 4y ago
    Gotta find a new pile of sand to thrust your head into at some point, right?
  - mmmpop 4y ago
    No you dipshit I reject your premise.
rainsford 4y ago
The fact that change in the abstract can be good or bad doesn't mean specific changes don't make things worse. But maybe more importantly, the rate of change makes a huge difference. If change happens too rapidly, as human driven climate change seems to be, you don't have time to sufficiently adapt to take advantage of the new pros or offset the cons. Climate change will make a lot of places less habitable while making some places more so. Great, it balances out, right? Except most people live in the places that are habitable now, and if the habitable areas change overnight (in relative terms), billions of people are going to suddenly be living in the wrong places. Natural climate change over tens of thousands of years would give populations plenty of time to migrate, as has happened in the past. Human driven climate change over 100 years will not.
- verisimi 4y ago
  If, will, might, etc. But have you seen anything that resembles a rapid change? Putting aside the media alarmists, I have seen nothing that can't be explained as change. The beaches of my childhood are still there at the same height etc. Yes there have been fires (that I put down to forest mismanagement) and floods which will occur if you build on flood plains and if you cut down trees. So, I don't see rapid change. You should re watch al gore's original inconvenient truth film and see how well that has aged. He sounds like the proverbial boy who shouting fire in the cinema. Given his eco-investments, his actions are really better explained as a marketing exercise to will line his pockets.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    It's not a rapid change. It's a slow change from about a century ago to projections about a century in the future. Another directly-observable-by-laymen example is the start of cherry blossom season: https://www.sciencealert.com/japan-s-cherry-blossoms-burst-into-color-sooner-than-they-have-in-1-200-years https://www.sciencealert.com/japan-s-cherry-blossoms-burst-i...
electrondood 4y ago
This comment is profoundly ignorant of the nature of anthropogenic climate change. It doesn't mean that "things will get warmer and happier for everyone." It means severe water shortages, mass migration of climate refugees, xenophobia and the resulting political turmoil, huge increases in lung cancer from wildfire smoke, frequent flooding, destruction of infrastructure to the tune of billions of dollars, mass extinction of species, etc. We don't even know what happens when certain feedback loops get triggered and a flywheel accelerant effect begins.

incrudible 4y ago

User23 4y ago
Given how generally pro-migration and immigration this site is, it’s odd that this is the concern about climate change.
- Buldak 4y ago
  This is like saying that people who think we should welcome asylum seekers should also welcome war and other calamities that make asylum necessary.
  - convolvatron 4y ago
    I heard you like to travel...so I destroyed your home
kennywinker 4y ago
I think you’re severely underestimating the chaos, war, and suffering that hundreds of millions of people moving will cause. But if that’s not enough - ecosystems will collapse causing outbreaks of pests that would normally be kept in check, water will become scarcer and aquifers will empty, all of which will result in food shortages and famines. As an example, we could see an end to seafood in our lifetime. It’s not outside the realm of possible - ocean acidification is one of the consequences of increased co2, and it’s already killing off shellfish. It’s unclear how far out into the food web a lack of shellfish would cascade. Ocean scientists talk about a world where the oceans are full of jellyfish and not much else. I’ve eaten jellyfish - it’s not good.
- incrudible 4y ago
  I don't see that people moving further inlands over the span of several decades is going to cause dramatic conflict, but feel free to catastrophize, otherwise climate change would be very boring. > As an example, we could see an end to seafood in our lifetime. [citation needed]

nemo44x 4y ago

The thing is, it happens very slowly. Over many decades and even centuries. It’s not like within a couple years suddenly all the coasts move. Not even in the most aggressive models which are likely wrong anyhow. It’s a slow and gradual process which means we can actively make progress against it.

EGreg 4y ago
Israel doesn’t seem to agree with your assessment, they say that they don’t have anything in place for the current speed… what about other more lowlying areas? https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/climate-change/2022-09-20/ty-article-magazine/.premium/facing-rapid-rise-in-sea-levels-israel-could-lose-large-parts-of-its-coastline/00000183-577f-d3b0-a9bf-f77f87500000?_amp=true https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/climate-change/20...

wrycoder 4y ago

It's an indication of what is happening in Scotland. Scotland would be very sensitive to small changes in the Gulf Stream, which are chaotic in nature. As far as the planet goes, the global troposphere's temperature has increased by only about 0.52C over the last forty years, as measured by satellite.[0] We are still coming out of both a major ice age, from 15,000 years ago, and a minor ice age, from 250 years ago, so some warming is expected. These changes are largely due to the Earth's orbit and inclination, and possibly to changes in the Sun's activity. The Earth is currently in a cold period compared to the historical record, though at times in the remote past the oceans have frozen almost completely.[1] There is always regional climate change. Deserts become wetter, then drier. The North Pole warms more rapidly than the South Pole, and then the opposite occurs. [0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2022-0-24-deg-c/ https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/10/uah-global-temperature-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth#Modern_conditions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth#...

scaramanga 4y ago
What you are describing is not "climate change" but "climate staying the same". Climate change refers to the climate moving in to a new state, not the usual oscillation between ice-ages and interglacials which is a state the climate has been in during the whole period humans existed (actually upright apes of all kinds, modern humans haven't been around that long anyway). Your first link is a well known climate denialist who also believes in other bunk such as intelligent design.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  Roy Spencer is skeptical about the more extreme climate predictions that arise from the computer models. If you read his work, you'll find out that he is a climate "luke-warmer" (like me): he believes that the global climate is gradually warming, but it's not yet clear how much of a part we humans actually play, or that the observed warming is detrimental. Spencer is responsible for making actual satellite temperature measurements: Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. "Climate Change" has been the new term for "Global Warming" for some time now. It is used because it's more flexible - most any change can be reported in an alarmist way. If you want to discuss the greening of the Sahara, that's local climate change. If you want to discuss the global warming of the troposphere, possibly due to increased global levels of CO2, that's "Global Warming", but "Lets call that Climate Change now". All the international concern and science activity is about the latter, not local climate change. I'm pointing out that the Global Warming forecasts are based on a large number of computer models, not on measurements of actual global reality. You'll notice that the IPCC is gradually abandoning its most extreme models, since their predictions have not actually occurred. It appears that the computer models and reality will converge at around a 1.3C per century increase, starting from 1980.