Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time | Hacker News Reader

Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time

scientificamerican.com

8 pointsotoolep8 comments

Suppose that the paper is correct. We could even go farther than it does by assuming twice as much time before warming becomes 'dangerous' and that it is (or becomes) sufficiently a commonly held knowledge or belief. Is it dangerous in the short term? Yes. States and state-like actors will begin preparing for the projected shifts in climate, water availability, etc. They will shift alliances, exert influence in new places, perhaps abandon old allies. Even countries that are projected to be spared will need to take steps if they have neighbors who will not be. And they will start as soon as possible. When states all shuffle the cards, it is always dangerous.

The article has two major flaws: first, it does not consider climate change caused by the meat industry: in the documentary COWSPIRACY it is shown that 54% of CO2 production is from the meat industry. The second flaw is the fact that our planet has multiple waves of more or less natural temperature changes; see for example Gregg Braden's site: http://www.greggbraden.com/blog/time-climate-extremes/

The actual flaw is that he never makes the argument that he baits the user with.

He argues over the projected change in a very amateurish way but that is besides the point because he never considers what it means to have a 1 degree global temperature rise.

He just sort of says, it's not 2 degrees, it is 1. So what? We are not even there yet and there is already evidence that there is a increase in the frequency of hurricanes. A 1 degree rise could be still very devastating for many regions worldwide.

"There is already evidence that there is a increase in the frequency of hurricanes"

There is no such evidence, certainly not for major hurricanes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-beli...

If you prefer a peer-reviewed journal, see:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00719....

From the abstract:

"The analysis does not indicate significant long-period global or individual basin trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling [tropical cyclones] of minor or major hurricane strength. The evidence in this study provides strong support for the conclusion that increasing damage around the world during the past several decades can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to TC landfalls..."

This more recent article contradicts the findings in the one you linked.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n11/abs/ngeo2560.html

I won't take any strong stances as this as it is not my field of research but I was under the impression that the affects of climate change on extreme weather phenomena has already been observed. It's not just hurricanes. There's also articles about drought and wildfires.

Your original claim was that the number of hurricanes has increased. This paper is talking about economic losses (i.e., something a lot fuzzier and less quantifiable than the raw number of hurricanes).

Do you have any actual evidence that the number of hurricanes has increased? If not, you should probably retract your original claim, rather than trying to change the subject to drought and wildfires.

>"self-described global warming skeptic at the Cato Institute"

Yeah, just the kind of data point that you want to use to get your point across about climate change.

>Matt Ridley, is a British journalist who has written several popular science books. He is also a businessman and a Conservative member of the House of Lords.[1]

This must be a joke. The guy could not be more compromised. I thought more highly of the Scientific American. I know it is just an opinion piece but still.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley

Reply on news.ycombinator.com