Three degree world cities drowned global warming | Hacker News Reader

Three degree world cities drowned global warming

theguardian.com

22 pointsevochimp16 comments

Can anyone provide a link to the visualisation software they used?

Seeing at a micro scale of 'per city' is useful to motivate but I'd love to see a World view of what we have coming in a 1, 2, 3°c and more rise

Given the structure for how cities go bankrupt now from public works projects, conversations should be started now for what makes a city insolvent.

Otherwise, last-ditch efforts to save doomed cities will destroy the resources needed for their inhabitants inevitable refugees. Especially given current waves of populism-driven, science-be-damned politicking.

Why don't we have global warming disaster movies? We have AI ones and even an earth freezing over. Was there one that did so poorly so as not to be attempted again?

Likely just as well. It would have to have a happy ending and somehow some unfunded hero saves the world.

Day after tomorrow, 2012 - we’ve had a fair few and they all suck

"The day the world ended," and Wall-E are about global warming.

Google Global warming movies and you'll find a bunch of high profile movies.

Neither of those films is about global warming.

One word: Waterworld

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterworld

Waterworld ?

"Although sea levels will not rise instantaneously, the calculated increases will be “locked in” at a temperature rise of 3C, meaning they will be irreversible even if warming eventually slows down."

That is something a lot of people don't truly realize.

We should do some research whether we can spray some dust like particles in stratosphere to reduce the level of suns intensity. It can counter global warming. If it works we can even blast some asteroid which will create dust particles in stratosphere which will cool the earth.

We might not need to spray them if we start putting them jet fuel. Maybe some aluminum particles float with the fuel and start reflecting back infrared radiation.

As I was reading this I was concerned that the people in the 1/5 affected areas would think it does not apply to them. It does but perhaps at 4C irreversible. As presented it makes it seem like global warming is Asia's problem to fix.

Before getting into the smog problems, let's start here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahleung/2018/04/21/five-asi...

and here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/90-of-plastic-polluti...

Im speculating on landworth inlands rising. Longterm bet, but im sure people will not migrate away from those cities completely, only gradually inwards.

I have to believe scientists and from what I see the argument for global warming is pretty solid.

That being said, I've been hearing about it for around 30 years dating back to a college class explaining exactly how CO2 trapped heat and showing starkly rising levels.

30 years isn't a short period of time so one can't say "climate is not season!" or whatever, and during this period the earth has not gotten noticeably warmer nor have any coastal areas I'm aware of been submerged due to warming.

Again, not denying warming makes sense on paper nor arguing it isn't happening or won't come to pass in the most extreme sense if we don't do something. I have to respect what science predicts. But what I do know, in the non theoretical world, is what was predicted then hasn't happened. I don't know why. Maybe it will later.

Point being, climate can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

Speculating on inland property in hopes climate change is going to make it worth something probably isn't going to pan out unless something (besides lip flapping and hand wringing) really starts moving soon. Unless it's a long term investment for your grandkids, then _maybe_.

Lol. I almost deleted this comment convinced someone would come along with an "OMG Global Warming Denialist! Stone him and burn the corpse!" and downvote comment to death.

At this point I'm going to leave the comment to see how much of that happens as sort of an informal survey.

And no, I'm not a denialist. I just have seen first hand what was predicted, and what didn't happen. But I accept the science. I assume there were modeling errors? So what makes me suppose the current set of predictions are any more accurate? Granted I don't follow the topic closely but the amount of hysteria surrounding it doesn't match what I saw happen.

Reality that occurred is reality and denying reality because a certain camp says XX isn't a good idea. It prevents us from improving our models and leads to various forms of irrational behavior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com