And my entire life I've been hearing predictions of climate change that would start getting serious... right about now. And here we are. A bit ahead of schedule, really.
Sea level rise? The rate of increase hasn't changed. Actually it was highest during Lincoln's presidency.
Droughts? Actually less severe and less frequent than 100 years ago.
Severe weather? Wild fires? Also, pretty much unchanged or slightly decreased.
Global temperatures? Sure, seem to be increasing moderately, but there's a ton of complication there. And we don't really know what the impact will be.
I think it's better to stop handwringing over pessimistic alarmist models and to focus on solving real, concrete, addressable ecological problems.
> I think it's better to stop handwringing over pessimistic alarmist models ...
Which climate models are pessimistic in your view?
Which models are alarmist? Please define alarmist as you are using it. What exactly are you measuring when you say "alarmist"? Is there a threshold?
Let's get some common footing. Here's a thought experiment and question: Let's say Organization X finds in 90% of model runs, the global climate is disrupted to the point that the USA will face between $400B and $800B of additional costs starting in 2040 and increasing somewhere around 1% to 3% per year.
* Is summarizing this finding alarmist? Of course not -- it is only describing a model's prediction.
* Is the model alarmist? What would make it alarmist? If the assumptions are unrealistic? But all models are imperfect. So how unrealistic must they be?
On the flip side, What models do you recommend? Please share how your favorite models are funded.
> ... and to focus on solving real, concrete, addressable ecological problems.
According to your definitions of "real", "concrete", and "addressable".
Do you think NASA's writing on climate change does not reflect reality? That is is not concrete? That the problems are not addressable? So is NASA alarmist w.r.t. climate change?
What about the reinsurance industry? Let's take Swiss Re. Are they alarmist?
Please point us to some solid writing (such as a credible report) that summarizes your views.
Two final questions: have you studied economics? built predictive models? I'd like to get a sense of good ways to have this discussion. Perhaps we can cut through a bunch of preliminaries and cut to the chase.
Do you agree that the following framing is a useful way to think about our response to climate change? Technological constraints define what levers can be pulled and at what cost, in the short-run at least. Political decisions drive how governments spend money. Economic factors constrain financial and monetary options. Over the medium-term, investments in science and technology tend to increase expand the option space.
When you expand the window, the picture changes.
Droughts and heat waves in the 1800s and 1930s were devastating killers, and some of the most severe in recorded history.
Australia had much more severe bush fires in the 70s [0].
Note that many Australian plants are have evolved to adapt to bush fires, which means they must have been a staple of Australian ecology for many millions of years.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974%E2%80%9375_Australian_bus... in 1974, 290m acres burned vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Australian_bus... in 2020 which has a highest estimate of about 86m acres burned.
