
Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time - otoolep
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/
======
ararar
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.

------
mhkool
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/](http://www.greggbraden.com/blog/time-climate-extremes/)

~~~
lumberjack
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.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"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...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-
global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/)

~~~
Turing_Machine
If you prefer a peer-reviewed journal, see:

[http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00719....](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00719.1?journalCode=clim&)

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..."

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

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

~~~
Turing_Machine
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.

------
lumberjack
>"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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley)

