Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

Started by Syt, November 17, 2015, 05:50:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Malthus

Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2019, 06:11:19 AM
One thing I am still finding hard to stomach is the premise that EVERYWHERE it will be worse for humans to live due to climate change. I accept that most places will be, and some places will become downright uninhabitable or destroyed. But surely SOME areas of the globe will become less unfriendly to human life thanks to the changes?

I suspect that the main issue is that thinking of "climate change" as "it gets warmer" is too simplistic. If it just got warmer, some places, currently cold, would indeed be better off as far as humans go. 

Problem is that the change will result in a great deal of instability - both in weather and in life. We will see more extreme weather events - which nobody wants. Life, adapted to one set of climate factors, will have to change over to another set, leading to a lot of problems. Permafrost melting, that sort of thing. 
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Richard Hakluyt

There is also the question of infrastructure. There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that are sited and constructed for the unheated world. This mismatch will be increasingly costly over time.

crazy canuck

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2019, 10:47:47 AM
There is also the question of infrastructure. There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that are sited and constructed for the unheated world. This mismatch will be increasingly costly over time.

And the question of reduction of sea life which reduces the amount of protein available to humans, reduction in farm yields because of reduction in soil quality not to mention loss of land itself.  The fact there are still some who try to say there is an upside is an indication that people don't yet fully understand the ramifications of climate change.  Its not a matter of nice weather moving north.

Legbiter

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2019, 10:47:47 AM
There is also the question of infrastructure. There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that are sited and constructed for the unheated world. This mismatch will be increasingly costly over time.

Yes that will be most of the difficulty. On the other hand we're barely out of the Little Ice Age and it's quite reasonable to assume that we might have a balmy few centuries compared to the frozen hellscape of the last 4. Quiet work on newer, smaller and safer nuclear reactors and carbon recapture over the next century and a half will largely sort out the anxiety over our carbon emissions. It will be quite positive even if humans have accidentally geoengineered Earth to be resistant to the extreme Milankovitch cycles of semi-regular 100,000 year long Ice Ages as has been the case over the last 5 million years or so.

And whatever offsets we Westerners develop this century for our economies are going to be puny compared to the carbon output from India and Africa industrializing in the same time period.
Posted using 100% recycled electrons.

Valmy

Quote from: Legbiter on September 18, 2019, 11:25:37 AM
And whatever offsets we Westerners develop this century for our economies are going to be puny compared to the carbon output from India and Africa industrializing in the same time period.

Huh? I thought you were saying we were going to sort this all out soon.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

crazy canuck

Quote from: Legbiter on September 18, 2019, 11:25:37 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2019, 10:47:47 AM
There is also the question of infrastructure. There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that are sited and constructed for the unheated world. This mismatch will be increasingly costly over time.

Yes that will be most of the difficulty. On the other hand we're barely out of the Little Ice Age and it's quite reasonable to assume that we might have a balmy few centuries compared to the frozen hellscape of the last 4. Quiet work on newer, smaller and safer nuclear reactors and carbon recapture over the next century and a half will largely sort out the anxiety over our carbon emissions. It will be quite positive even if humans have accidentally geoengineered Earth to be resistant to the extreme Milankovitch cycles of semi-regular 100,000 year long Ice Ages as has been the case over the last 5 million years or so.

And whatever offsets we Westerners develop this century for our economies are going to be puny compared to the carbon output from India and Africa industrializing in the same time period.

15 years or less to 1.5.  Don't worry be happy is exactly the worst message to give.

Legbiter

Quote from: Valmy on September 18, 2019, 11:31:40 AMHuh? I thought you were saying we were going to sort this all out soon.

Yes I'm quite optimistic. Short term though I think these people will use their fossil fuels to bootstrap themselves up to a suffciently high GDP where they start cleaning up their local enviornments.
Posted using 100% recycled electrons.

Legbiter

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 11:34:34 AM15 years or less to 1.5.  Don't worry be happy is exactly the worst message to give.

Whatever climate we'll have this century is already baked into the system. The timescale for these infrastructure improvements is a century and a half. We survived the Medieval warm period, we'll handle this century fine I reckon.
Posted using 100% recycled electrons.

crazy canuck

Quote from: Legbiter on September 18, 2019, 11:47:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 11:34:34 AM15 years or less to 1.5.  Don't worry be happy is exactly the worst message to give.

Whatever climate we'll have this century is already baked into the system. The timescale for these infrastructure improvements is a century and a half. We survived the Medieval warm period, we'll handle this century fine I reckon.

You should read the IPCC report.  Your conclusion that we are going to reach warming of 1.5 no matter what is not consistent with the science.  The report makes it clear that if we do nothing we will reach more than 2.0 in a short period of time but it we still have time to avoid 1.5 now.  Further your conclusion that we have seen all this before is also not consistent with the science.

You can reckon all you want.  I prefer to listen to the scientists.

Maladict

Quote from: Legbiter on September 18, 2019, 11:47:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 11:34:34 AM15 years or less to 1.5.  Don't worry be happy is exactly the worst message to give.

Whatever climate we'll have this century is already baked into the system. The timescale for these infrastructure improvements is a century and a half. We survived the Medieval warm period, we'll handle this century fine I reckon.

This is one of the most idiotic things I've read on this board.


frunk

#835
The Medieval warm period was a local climate change that almost doesn't even make a mark on the global climate.

The last time we had a global climate close to this hot was 5000 BC and it took 3500 years to get there from the 1961-90 average (and another 3000 to get back down).  We've done it in less than 50 years.

That pace of change is so radically different we really have no idea how well or how quickly the ecosystems will be able to adapt.

crazy canuck

Quote from: frunk on September 18, 2019, 12:17:10 PM
The Medieval warm period was a local climate change that almost doesn't even make a mark on the global climate.

The last time we had a global climate close to this hot was 5000 BC and it took 3500 years to get there from the 1961-90 average (and another 3000 to get back down).  We've done it in less than 50 years.

That pace of change is so radically different we really have no idea how well or how quickly the ecosystems will be able to adapt.

One small correction, we are beginning to get a pretty good idea that there will be a massive die off.  The significantly reduced salmon run in BC is one example of that.

frunk

Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 12:54:49 PM

One small correction, we are beginning to get a pretty good idea that there will be a massive die off.  The significantly reduced salmon run in BC is one example of that.

I'd say it's guaranteed that some species will definitely suffer.  The question is whether enough others will survive, how well will they survive and how quickly can they fill in the niches left by those species that don't make it.

crazy canuck

Quote from: frunk on September 18, 2019, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 12:54:49 PM

One small correction, we are beginning to get a pretty good idea that there will be a massive die off.  The significantly reduced salmon run in BC is one example of that.

I'd say it's guaranteed that some species will definitely suffer.  The question is whether enough others will survive, how well will they survive and how quickly can they fill in the niches left by those species that don't make it.

Ah, agreed.

Malthus

Quote from: frunk on September 18, 2019, 01:12:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 18, 2019, 12:54:49 PM

One small correction, we are beginning to get a pretty good idea that there will be a massive die off.  The significantly reduced salmon run in BC is one example of that.

I'd say it's guaranteed that some species will definitely suffer.  The question is whether enough others will survive, how well will they survive and how quickly can they fill in the niches left by those species that don't make it.

I'd say it is absolutely guaranteed that enough others will survive - but they will likely not be the ones we humans want.

The concept here is "weed species". "Weed species" is a term sometimes used to define species, plants or animals, that adapt easily to new climates, resist all attempts at eradication, and spread widely - like rats, pigeons, dandelions or raccoons in urban environments. They are not susceptible to elimination by changes in environment. They are generalists and survivors.

I have no doubt that hardy weed species will survive and even thrive, as the competition gets killed off by climate change - but humans would probably find a planet full of "weed species" a lot less attractive. 

[Note that humans themselves are basically a "weed species"!]
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius