Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by kfrzcode 1106 days ago
Keep calm, carry on, adapt.

Slow-moving crises are not crises, they're problems, not emergencies.

----

Here, have some literature, down-voters! ----

[1] Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr. [0]

----

We compare estimates of coastal and global averaged sea level for 1950 to 2000. During the 1990s and around 1970, we find coastal sea level is rising faster than the global average but that it rises slower than the global average during the late 1970s and late 1980s. The differences are largely a result of sampling the time-varying geographical distribution of sea level rise along a coastline which is more convoluted in some regions than others. More rapid coastal rise corresponds to La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean and a slower rate corresponds to El Niño–like conditions. Over the 51 year period, there is no significant difference in the rates of coastal and global averaged sea level rise, as found in climate model simulations of the 20th century. The best estimate of both global average and coastal sea level rise remains 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr−1, as found in earlier studies. [1]

----

Kemp et al. (1) note that recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports emphasize sub-2 °C scenarios. Simultaneously, IPCC reports also overemphasize catastrophic scenarios, as does broader discourse. For example, the cataclysmic Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5-8.5 (SSP5-8.5) scenarios—now widely considered implausible (2)—account for roughly half of the scenario mentions in recent IPCC Assessment Reports’ impacts (Working Group II) sections (Fig. 1A), similar to underlying scientific literature (3). The SSP3-7.0 emissions pathway, which Kemp et al. (1) use in their analyses, assumes a world in 2100 heavily reliant on coal and with no climate policy—an implausible future (3, 4). It projects vastly higher emissions than the International Energy Agency (IEA) stated policies scenario, which has continually been revised downward in recent years (4) (Fig. 1B). [2]

----

[0]: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200... [1]: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/200... [2]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2214347119

Cherry-picked because hey, why not?

4 comments

This isn’t moving that slowly any more.
Therefore... panic?
Given that such rapid and severe deviations as shown in the charts are unheard of at this scale, perhaps a little panic is justified. It’s certainly worrying.
I agree it's worrying. Panic to me, though, indicates a loss of your faculties. You still have to be able to assess the situation objectively and adapt accordingly. I guess my point is that hyperbole about climate change (alarmism) is just as unhelpful as climate change denial.
Except that in context nobody, not even the self-proclaimed doomer who wrote the post, is suggesting we all go running around in blind panic with our hair on fire over this. Rather, that it’s severe enough and so far out beyond recorded temperatures that it should be an urgent priority that’s taken extremely seriously.

Claiming this is just panic is devaluing the data and an argument in favour of yet more inaction or slow and ineffective action.

To be fair, this particular deviation we are seeing in the ocean temps was knowingly and intentionally caused by changing the environmental regulations around sulfur content.

So it’s a weird state to be in where the environmentalists are pushing dramatic warming policies.

Finally doing something or calling for action isn't "panicking"..
It’s moving super slowly, and if nothing is done by the end of the century, we’ll be slightly worse off than we are now.
I can’t tell if you’re trolling, in denial, or just very naive.

Climate change is already causing economic damage and the loss of lives. This isn’t some theoretical future problem.

You should read some of Bjørn Lomborg's stuff.
Maybe you should say hello to the people of Pakistan for a change.
If living in poverty, without access to various types of medication because our fragile supply chains broke is "slightly worse off", then sure, yeah, it's just going to be slight change
Uncontrolled fires in the arctic circle along with every continent aside from Antarctica? Yeah, that doesn't sound apocalyptic at all!
Slow moving relative to your sense of time, sure. Extremely fast moving on a planetary timeline.
This is not slow-moving.
Wake me up when the banks stop giving 30 year loans for coastline property.

Who do you trust? Bankers or the "experts".

Bankers are known to be responsible and have a fantastic history of being responsible with others money. There are no reasons why a collection of individuals would make a bad decision which would impact other people 10, 20, or 30 years in the future for an immediate gain.
Bankers aren't in the business of underwriting risk, other than credit risk. However, mortgages typically require having property insurance as a condition for issuing the mortgage, so de facto, if the property is uninsurable, the bank isn't issuing a loan. The expert insurance and reinsurance underwriters have started raising rates or exiting some markets altogether, as well.
Google California insurance providers.

Anyone else got examples?

In Belgium, if you buy an appartment at the coastline using a business, the fiscal authorities dispute the tax deductability and depreciation (33y by default) if it is not at least on the second floor.
This is without a doubt the most hilarious take I have ever seen.
Expectations of a bailout might mess up this analysis.
Exactly. Rich coastal communities are powerful and stand a decent chance of being able to force the rest of us to hold their bags.
Markets are irrational - yeah I'll trust where the data leads rather than a known overinflated housing market
When the mouths are moving, watch the hands.
I’m guessing this is a satirical question, given the behavior of the banking industry within living memory..