Comment by the-dude | Hacker News Reader

Comment by the-dude | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Let's please remember you have asked for it.

I have lived through :

- The end of the cold war, we were all going to die a horrible death, all at once.

- Acid rain, all forests would die and consequently we would die too or have a terrible planet

- The hole in the ozone layer, we would all get skin cancer ( I can't remember if we would die )

- Tchernobyl with elevated radiation stretching into Europe. Could not eat apricot-jam and damn I love apricot-jam

Furthermore, I have studied Computer Science, which was basically 50% math. I have worked with people developing physical models, advanced computing and simulations are freaking hard.

In my time, the hockey-stick would be an indication there is something wrong with the model ( instability ). "Nature does not behave this way"

The earth is getting greener and yields are up, partly because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is completely unclear if "climate change" is either good or bad.

The sea level has been rising for thousands and thousand of years : about 6-8k years ago, I would be able to walk to the UK ( from NL ).

The hole in the ozone layer was stopped because countries got together and signed a treaty to ban CFCs. It is the most successful example of international collaboration on an environmental issue ever.

I am glad you agree on that point. And it wasn't a 'crisis'.

It was a crisis that was resolved through international action.

I'm not really sure what your point is. That we don't have to worry about global warming because countries are going to work together to stop it? I wish I had your optimism.

Just pick one of your points that seems misunderstood:

> In my time, the hockey-stick would be an indication there is something wrong with the model ( instability ). "Nature does not behave this way"

But the popularly known "hockey stick" graph isn't a model prediction, it's a reconstruction of past and current temperatures. "Nature is currently behaving this way"... And as you point out, that's an indication that there's something wrong -- instability.

Hey thnx. Just read up and point taken.

It's not actually a reconstruction of temperatures – it's cherry-picked data to support a per-determined conclusion.

The greying-out of the above comment might suggest one reason people don't want to engage with the issue here.

In technical discussions on HN, people are allowed to bring up contrarian opinions and ideas.

In highly-politicized issues, people tend to line up on sides, and downvote accordingly.

There are legitimate scientists who think climate is a potentially serious problem, like many others, but neither a crisis nor an emergency. It's hard for them to get heard.

If you speak with authority on a subject you will probably get downvoted if you are wrong about it. At least one of either humility or accuracy is expected.

Rising sea levels are unambiguously bad for the millions of people who live by the coast.

People will migrate up to where the coast is. The North-Sea used to be inhatibed ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland )

On a long timescale, yes, they will. On a short timescale, many people will die. You can't just move an entire house to a different city (and obviously no-one will be able to sell a house on a drowning coastline).

For example, the Pacific Islands will face rising tides along their whole coastline, while simultaneously facing extreme weather events and agricultural disruption. What's your solution for an entire country of people simultaneously trying to immigrate elsewhere?

You are describing a deluge, end of times. Not a rise in sea level.

I wish that were true, but there are already uninhabited islands that have sunk below the waves [1]. There are inhabited ones (e.g. the Carteret islands) which are on their way out and already suffering:

"Since 1994, the islanders of the seven atolls, lying only 1.2 metres above sea level, have already lost about 50 per cent of their land. Traditional food sources have become scarce, regularly placing the islanders in situations of near famine. The communities also face severe water shortages due to prolonged droughts and sea-level rises that affect their freshwater supply." [2]

[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2146594-eight-low-lying...

[2] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-06-11/understanding-...

There have been uninhabited islands that sunk below the waves since the beginning of time.

But how is this "many people will die"? Have people already died? Are they dying by the 100ths? Or the thousands?

I guess not. And they will migrate away.

Some people will die of ancillary causes (mostly lost wealth). It will impact the poorest, and frankly dumbest, individuals who will not face a creeping inevitability.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com