Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday June 04 2020, @11:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the and-the-rain-rain-rain-came-down-down-down dept.

The Atlantic's third storm has formed in record time, and it's a threat:

Last year's Atlantic hurricane season ranked among the top five most-active years on record. Its third named storm, Chantal, did not form until August 20.

By contrast, today is June 2, and the Atlantic's third named storm of the year just formed. [...]

This is the earliest ever in the Atlantic season (which, however imperfect, has records dating back to 1851) that the third named storm has formed in a given year. The previous earliest "C" storm was Colin, on June 5, 2016.

[...] The storm is trapped within a large oceanic circulation, known as a gyre, and high pressure over the northern Gulf of Mexico is also inhibiting its motion. As a result, Cristobal will probably wobble around the Bay of Campeche until at least Friday. This will cause torrential rainfall in Southern Mexico and parts of Central America this week.

[...] The bottom line is that a tropical system is likely to be in the Gulf of Mexico late this week, bound for the United States, over waters warm enough to sustain intensification. The time for preparations is definitely now.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @01:25AM (9 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @01:25AM (#1004035) Journal

    So the alternative is take a total loss on their existing investment?

    If only I had said that, then you would have a point. But an investment two centuries in the future is not an investment today. And if the park is underwater two centuries from now, then something expensive will happen, with sort of loss or expenditure required. It's not I who is "generous" with their money, but reality itself.

  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 06 2020, @02:24AM (8 children)

    by sjames (2882) on Saturday June 06 2020, @02:24AM (#1004047) Journal

    Sophistry and weasel words, and I suspect you know it.

    Reality is that inaction on CO2 pollution is the problem.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @06:04AM (7 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @06:04AM (#1004106) Journal

      Sophistry and weasel words, and I suspect you know it.

      I find it surprising that you even try that.

      Let's stop being asinine fools for a bit. The original assertion was that Disney World would be under water in 200 years. I assume you're not so ridiculously braindead as to assume that Disney World would operate normally without impairment of any sort while underwater. Right?

      So they have a choice that no matter what, will cost them. Be it scuttling Disney World, moving it, or fortifying it in place somehow. This isn't hypocritical conservative cooties. It's the prior of the suposition.

      Reality is that inaction on CO2 pollution is the problem.

      Is a problem. There are many others include several environment problems of more serious degree such as normal pollution, habitat destruction, overpopulation, resource mismanagement, and deforestation. Should you ever want to get serious about this stuff, it's good to keep in mind what the real problems are.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 06 2020, @07:03AM (6 children)

        by sjames (2882) on Saturday June 06 2020, @07:03AM (#1004116) Journal

        Continued inaction on CO2 pollution is essentially saving some money now at an immense cost to a few later. Thus my comment that you are quite generous with other people's money.

        Nice try muddying the water, but you failed. The essential logic is right there. You advocate inaction so you can pass the costs on to an unfortunate subset of people (with a great deal of interest) later when you're dead so they can't sue you.

        Of course, it won't just be Disney, it'll also be a lot of people with far less resources at their disposal.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @08:38AM (5 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @08:38AM (#1004121) Journal

          Continued inaction on CO2 pollution is essentially saving some money now at an immense cost to a few later.

          Then where's the evidence? You'd be huffing and puffing whether it were true or not.

          Nice try muddying the water, but you failed. The essential logic is right there. You advocate inaction so you can pass the costs on to an unfortunate subset of people (with a great deal of interest) later when you're dead so they can't sue you.

          I made two points - far future costs are deeply discounted in a growing economy like we have and Big Oil isn't stupid enough to massively short Tesla. Fortunately, there are other readers than you.

          Of course, it won't just be Disney, it'll also be a lot of people with far less resources at their disposal.

          And far less cost to move. Not feeling the concern over here.

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 06 2020, @04:49PM (4 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Saturday June 06 2020, @04:49PM (#1004235) Journal

            And far less cost to move. Not feeling the concern over here.

            My point exactly, because you are very generous with other people's money.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @05:38PM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @05:38PM (#1004249) Journal

              My point exactly, because you are very generous with other people's money.

              No. Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true. Here's a question that should cut to the core of the matter. How does one not be "very generous with other peoples' money" in this situation? What's the proper course of action here?

              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday June 06 2020, @05:51PM (2 children)

                by sjames (2882) on Saturday June 06 2020, @05:51PM (#1004258) Journal

                Take action on climate change so that people don't get flooded out.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @07:26PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @07:26PM (#1004284) Journal
                  I thought it would come to that. You're proposing an even worse "generosity". Sorry, no credibility there. Even if we were to suppose that JoeMerchant's scenario happened with Disney World and Bangladesh drowned by rising sea levels, despite lack of evidence to support it, we still have the remarkable ineffectiveness of those actions on climate change. I'm not a fan of squander peoples' wealth now, often in ways that just make the situation worse, so that we can avoid relatively minor costs of the future.

                  Here's what I know (Joe BTW has heard this before.). The non-immigrant part of the developed world has gone into negative population growth (that is, without immigration and the higher fertility of second generation immigrants, the entire developed world would be in negative population growth). The rest of the world has seen a massive drop in human fertility. The key factors are empowerment of women and rising wealth of average people globally. That last part is important - more wealth among people, the lower the population growth rate and the more interested and capable they are in solving environmental matters.

                  Current proposals to "take action on climate change" monkey with that. They make people poorer (and hence, higher fertility and greater disinterest in environmental matters like sea levels in 200 years), thus, making climate change worse in the long run. I can go through the list: agricultural subsidies that adopted the language in order to get environmentalists' support like US corn ethanol subsidies; carbon emission trading markets that still can't get it right; paying energy providers who can do their own damn research to build pointless technology demonstration projects; the continued obsession with ending fossil fuel use without having adequate replacements; and the huge variety of small scale environmental projects like most recycling which sacrifice valuable resources like human time for cheap plastic, glass, and paper (wasting more valuable resources to conserve or recycling less valuable resources). It's not just that I don't think climate change is that important a problem. I think also that we already see that would-be fixes actually make it worse. So here's my proposal. We only go after cheap, low lying fruit, like putting out coal mine fires, information distribution on conservation, further habitat conservation, eliminating flood insurance subsidies and other simple measures to reduce the cost of extreme weather, and making the economy more efficient and productive. And stop wasting our time with "doing actions" that are worse than doing nothing, instead building up our civilization(s) so that they will be more capable and interested in fixing climate change, if and when climate change becomes a serious problem.
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2020, @10:12PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 06 2020, @10:12PM (#1004344) Journal
                  I think what is particularly telling about this exchange, is how you describe what we should do:

                  Take action on climate change

                  inaction on CO2 pollution is the problem

                  At no point, do you articulate what "action" and "inaction" are. So that leads to my other reply. My take is that proponents of action for climate change mitigation are so ignorant and misinformed of climate, demographics, and economics that there's no point to considering such demands for action. Doing nothing is better.