10 ms·

So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical. Other t

by krautt 9y ago

So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical. Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't know the answer.

dwaltrip 9y ago
Widespread and severe agricultural issues, drought, an increase in extreme weather (hurricanes / typhoons / etc), unprecedented heat waves, and others I'm forgetting. This along, with the issues you've mentioned, could result in significant political instability across the world, massive migration issues that could easily dwarf the migration issues of the last decade, perhaps even severe wars, and other disastrous situations. I'm not qualified to give a full description. Some form of the above seems fairly plausible to me if we don't take serious pragmatic action. It's of course incredibly difficult to give meaningful predictions about something this complex. But let's not bet the damn farm on it. It is very well established that there are serious risks. The time has long come for anyone in a relevant position of leadership to accept the responsibility and take effective action.
mathgenius 9y ago
How about the Syrian civil war? "global warming is said to have played a role in sparking the 2011 uprising. Severe drought plagued Syria from 2007-10, causing as many as 1.5 million people to migrate from the countryside into cities, exacerbating poverty and social unrest." http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/2/syrias-civil-war-linked-partly-to-drought-global-warming.html http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/2/syrias-civil-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Drought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Drought
- b1daly 9y ago
  A not unreasonable hypothesis. Yet the bulk of the destruction is the result of ghastly military actions, aimed at direct destruction of the society. To worry about the contribution of climate change is not pointless. Close to it though.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Also Boko Haram: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/09/behind-rise-nigeria-boko-haram-climate-disaster-peak-oil-depletion https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...
snowwrestler 9y ago
> Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? "Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" The displacement of large numbers of people will cause immense strife. Just look at the nasty reaction to the relatively small migration away from the Syrian civil war. The problem is basically that all the land near populated coastlines is already owned, and those owners are not going to be inclined to let millions of their neighbors move in without some compensation. But if those neighbors' coastal property just got swallowed by the sea, they probably don't have many assets left to pay.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Though the Syrian civil war can be used to illustrate this, a better example is the india - bangladesh fenced wall. Bangladesh is one of the first country and most severely impacted by climate change and this wall has been put in place to stop people bangladesh migrating away from climate change consequences into India. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/indias-fence-of-shame https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/indias-fence-o... http://indianexpress.com/article/india/laser-walls-smart-sensors-at-india-bangladesh-border-soon-4454961/ http://indianexpress.com/article/india/laser-walls-smart-sen...
Red_Tarsius 9y ago
> So it's going to get warmer The life cycle of countless animals and plants is finetuned to our current climate. Crops are also at the mercy of weather patterns. We have no idea whether our food sources will get through the changes. Example of unknown unknown: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/australia-green-sea-turtles-turning-female-climate-change-raine-island-sex-temperature/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/australia-green-... > What's the big deal? We are talking about hundreds of millions of starving people moving away from the coastlines AND the Equator. Example: https://web.archive.org/web/20180107084251/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-unfolding-tragedy-of-climate-change-in-bangladesh/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180107084251/https://blogs.sci... Bangladesh alone has half the population of the US.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  > We have no idea whether our food sources will get through the changes. Actually we do, chances are temperature increase by the end of the century will make agriculture impossible in most part of the lands of the planet. > What's the big deal? Simply put, it is a matter of destroying the conditions favorable to human life on this planet.
Alextigtig 9y ago
I was also convinced that this was a reasonable way of looking at things because often the "climate change debate" is portrayed as two-sided; one arguing that climate change isn't a big deal and one arguing that it is. This leads to the false supposition that the true answer lies somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately it does not. For me, one of the most eye-opening experiences was reading an article from the New Yorker the worst of what may happen due to climate change.[0] Because the "climate change is happening" side often tries to ground their claims in research and climate-models, they are rarely apocalyptic or even the slightest bit exaggeratory, while the other side often argues at the opposite extreme of "nothing will happen." I found this article to be helpful in orienting the debate, as it helped me realize that the expected value of doing nothing is really far worse than what I imagined. [0] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-...
- eschevarria 9y ago
  The New York Magazine is not research. Want to know what the actual research says? Look at figure 10.1 on page 690 of the IPCC’s AR5 WG II report. As it shows, most of the studies on the total impact of climate change for increases between 2.6 and 4.8 °C, which is the range for the IPCC’s highest emissions scenario during the 21st century, result in estimates of the impact on welfare equivalent to a change between 0% and −3% in GNP. Positive effects are included in the estimates, so 0% and two positive values appear outside the range. This is not about the economic impact but about the total impact on welfare, so it really is what is relevant. The factors considered by the studies include variation in agricultural yield, water availability, changes in tourism flow, energy demand, impact on human health, labor productivity. How bad do you think −3% is during the 21st century? That’s less than 0.035% less economic growth starting in 2014 when the Fifth Assessment Report was published. Even a policy that was completely effective at entirely preventing any global warming could only be justified if its cost was otherwise less than 0.035%. The policies we could implement would not be completely effective and would certainly cost more than 0.035%. Therefore the expected value of doing nothing about global warming is higher than the expected value of doing something.
nokcha 9y ago
Melting of the northern permafrost could release a large amount of mercury (estimated around 800 gigagrams). (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16330219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16330219) There is also worry of a positive feedback loop that could cause global warming to spiral out of control. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis)
flycaliguy 9y ago
Ticks are getting worse in my neck of the woods. If they keep getting worse, that would really suck.
- giarc 9y ago
  Your comment is a bit greyed out, meaning you are getting downvotes. However you are right. Climate change means migration of disease vectors such as ticks and mosquitos into places they didn't survive before. One only has to look at Zika virus and the Aedes mosquito as an example.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    Look at how Lyme Disease is getting into Canada (Ontario and Quebec) with climate change allowing ticks to expand their territory.
oldandtired 9y ago
As far as sea-level rises are concerned, the Arctic sea ice will probably be a net sea-level fall, except around the Equator. If all of the Greenland glaciers were to disappear, well then, we would see a sea-level rise, globally. But it would be distributed unevenly across the world. The higher levels would again be around the Equator with decreasing levels the further north or south of the Equator you go. But to get even a 1/3 of the Greenland ice cover to melt requires an unimaginably large amount of energy to do so. I'd have more concerns about the devastation of that much energy on the atmosphere than I do about any trivial amount of ice melt and associated sea-level rise. The planet is close to being a steady state system, that is the energy inflows from the day side is about equivalent to the energy outflows on the night side. This varies throughout the year due to various factors, including orbital position, solar energy output, climate factors like clouds, etc. The required energy to get 1/3 of Greenland glacial melt is approximately about the amount of energy received by the Earth on a single day, without any of that energy being released on the night side. Due to the slow conductivity of water in both solid and liquid forms, the atmosphere would need to essentially hold all of that energy. Even over a hundred years, that would probably mean atmospheric temperatures that would probably kill most, if not all, life on the surface of the planet. There has been one study (that I know of) that has looked at the retention of energy over a period of about 50 years and the conclusion was that only 2 to maybe 5% of the energy retained managed to get into ice-melt. So to get the required ice-melt energy needed, we would need, say, 20 to 25 days worth of solar input radiation to be fully retained within the atmosphere (no leakage back into space). In addition, I somehow think that even a 5 or 10 degree Celsius temperature rise would lead quickly to a sharp fall in global temperatures and would the initiation of a global ice-age. Since the planet has an approximate coverage by oceans and sea ice of 70%, an average rise of 5 to 10 degrees would more than likely see a huge rise in cloud coverage and subsequent reflection of energy back out into space, followed by a subsequent rapid cooling of the globe. Of course, these figures are dependent on common available information and could be wrong by some percentage. It's not hard to do your own calculations if you want to get some feel for what might be possible.
- yters 9y ago
  It is interesting the other comments in this area are vague and emotional, whereas the only thought out comment is downvoted because it is critical of global warming. This constant dynamic is what makes me skeptical of the whole global warming thing.
panarky 9y ago
War.
- rdiddly 9y ago
  Good God y'all
gremlinsinc 9y ago
You ever see interstellar? Bad news -- drought/blight/warmth could destroy crops...perhaps even be an extinction level event. Good news -- there is none.. likelihood of aliens or future humans saving us is next to nil. I think we have maybe 50 years till we're close to any near ELE but my kid might see it.
- jsilence 9y ago
  Ask Paul Beckwith about the fifty year estimate.
- RandomCSGeek 9y ago
  AFAIK, the current rate of species extinction is exponentially faster than the previous ones. So "perhaps" might not be a suitable word.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  The anthropocene mass extinction event has been happening for a while now. IIRC we were warned about it in 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_Humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_H...
polotics 9y ago
Not just warmer: less stable. Most likely feedback loop to you is crop failures, mass starvation, conflicts. Do not rule out extreme weather events as well.
WhitneyLand 9y ago
Is the problem really not knowing? Because even you don’t know, is it not enough that virtually all credible scientists are warning us of the very bad things we are at risk of? I know you are not debating the issue, but to me one of the most interesting questions is why do people deny this even when they have no vested interest? One obvious answer is that it’s become a party platform issue and those that do have an interest have poisoned the well of thought for large numbers of people. Maybe that’s part of it, but it’s hard to believe it’s that simplistic and there is no other psychology at play. Whatever lack of respect one has for an opposing political party, you’d think after hearing enough doomsday scenarios it would at least be worth digging in a little to see what all the fuss is about.
- yters 9y ago
  For me it is hand wavy doomsday scenarios that makes me skeptical, along with hand wavy predictions that don't come true. My thought is that if it truly was as serious as people say, the evidence and argument would feel a lot more solid and there would be less fearmongering.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    I'm not sure what doomsday scenarios and failed predictions you're referring to but even though for some reason it feels otherwise to you evidence and argument is quite solid. Seems you may be victim of a bias of some kind here[1], or have been exposed to some misinformation of some kind. [1]: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/01/30/yanss-094-how-motivated-skepticism-strengthens-incorrect-beliefs/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/01/30/yanss-094-how-motiva...
    - yters 9y ago
      Doomsday scenarios in the public imagination. For instance, I saw a commercial in a UK theatre that showed people drowning in city streets due to global warming. That's ridiculous. I've heard claims the Maledives will be submerged in X years, even though the Maledives are coral islands that will rise with the sea level increase. Then I see lots of conjecture that this or that tragedy is attributable to global warming. In general, there is a lot of alarmism, but it is hard to pin down what exactly the problem is. Maybe you can clarify. What is a specific problem we face that is directly attributable to global warming?
pmarreck 9y ago
Most first-worlders won't see much difference. Poor people in equatorial regions that are already on the edge of uninhabitability without air conditioning will start to experience actual uninhabitability unless underground or air-conditioning solutions are procured (and even then, things will get very very uncomfortable outdoors for portions of the year) Again, this will affect the most vulnerable people on the earth first: "A study by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2009)[120] estimated the effect of climate change on human health. Not all of the effects of climate change were included in their estimates, for example, the effects of more frequent and extreme storms were excluded. Climate change was estimated to have been responsible for 3% of diarrhoea, 3% of malaria, and 3.8% of dengue fever deaths worldwide in 2004. Total attributable mortality was about 0.2% of deaths in 2004; of these, 85% were child deaths." (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming)
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  I'm a first worlder and I've been seeing the difference for over a decade now. I'm close to convinced that first world is the worst place to be as the chances of survival are the worst due to the country being almost entirely dependent on importations for its needs and has outsourced most and lost its ability to sustain itself while lacking reserves. I think first worlders will be among those hit the harder because they will lose almost everything they're used to and left with the inability to live as the grand parents did for they have forgotten this knowledge.
onion2k 9y ago
Would melting sea ice lead to a rise in sea level? The ice is floating, so it's displacing the approximately same mass of water as it contains. If it melts the overall water level shouldn't change.
- Symbiote 9y ago
  The ice on Antarctica is on land.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    The ice on Antarctica is not exactly melting at an alarming rate.
- RandomCSGeek 9y ago
  Although you are right, note that liquid water expands as it heats. Also, not all ice is floating.
- symmetricsaurus 9y ago
  This is correct, melting sea ice does not lead to a rise in sea level. It’s the melting of glaciers and ice sheets (on Greenland for example) that cause the sea level to rise.
- flukus 9y ago
  1. Thermal expansion. It's a tiny effect, you won't see it in a glass of water in science class but when you've got oceans a few kilometers deep and humans living a few meters above them it can have an impact. 2. It's a feedback effect. Less ice means less light reflected means more energy in our oceans/atmosphere. In turn this creates more ice loss that won't be sea ice.
  - gaius 9y ago
    Water expands as it freezes. That’s why pipes burst in winter.
tbabb 9y ago
The very real possibility of 98% of life on Earth dying? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
RandomCSGeek 9y ago
A huge part of world's population lives on coastal cities. When cities like Mumbai and Dhaka will start to submerge, you can imagine the havoc that will cause. Also, some countries like maldives will completely submerge. I don't think europeans would be very happy about accepting these people, given the situation that has arisen from Middle eastern migration. A lot of wildlife requires specific environmental situation. A lot of species won't survive changes in temperature. Most poor people will have hard time surviving either increased flooding or increased droughts. Where I live(South MH, India), we are already facing drought every other year, and I am preety sure this is going to get worse. Millions live in this area. Where do you think we will move when we don't have water? (clue: look for places with more water) So in short, huge parts of world either get submerged in sea, suffer from severe droughts/flooding, from desertification, or from the destruction of crops. Without food, water and land, people migrate in large numbers, and thus exert more pressure on those places. Some experts believe that a war is likely between India and China over water in next decade. I haven't touched the issue of lack of antibiotics and resurgence of old diseases at all.
- lazyjones 9y ago
  > When cities like Mumbai and Dhaka will start to submerge, you can imagine the havoc that will cause. Actually, no, I can't. This won't happen overnight, cities will just slowly move away from the coastline. It will take hundreds of years to cover such cities with water (if ever).
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    Current estimations say this could happen around 2040-2050 and will happen before the end of the century. so not centuries but decades. And it will happen as the rise of sea level would not stop even if we stopped the increase of temperature instantly due to inertia.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Most of what you mention is actually a problem solving itself. One of the cause of man made climate change is overpopulation, with most of the human population being crammed into megacities of which many are coastal it means the overpopulation will probably fix itself with people living in big cities mass dying. Big and not that big cities do not produce enough food and water for themselves, density of population means they will be hotspots for contagious diseases, means of transportation out of those cities do not allow for mass migration, all these and more means those people are likely to die. On the other hand people living in the countryside, are able to grow food, have knowledge of local plants and generally can sustain themselves have much better chance to survive the catastrophic events to come. Though some experts think a war over water between India and China is possible, other think the collapse will happen so fast that it will wipe all possibility of military action and leave only people that will have no choice but work together to survive. This scenario is also likely. It's been a while since I've been in India but imho this is one the places on earth with potential to survive climate change.
rdiddly 9y ago
No one seems to have said yet: Billions of dollars in immobile port infrastructure made useless and having to be rebuilt further inland
avip 9y ago
Nothing to see here folks, we're just "displacing" 15% [1] of the world population. What could possibly go wrong? [1] number invented for brevity.
danmaz74 9y ago
If the temperature increases several degrees, hundreds of million - maybe even billion - of people will be displaced not just from the coastlines, but also from areas becoming desertified. Can you imagine the economic distress, humanitarian crises, and the conflicts this can generate?
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  I think you are downplaying it a bit here. The temperature is already well on its path of increasing several degrees. Economy will probably cease to exist. There will be no humanitarian crisis but simply people mass dying. The "conflicts" may be nukes or sticks and stones but there's also a possibility that there will be relatively few conflicts depending on the strength of the culture of selfish in the local area.
  - danmaz74 9y ago
    I honestly think you're overplaying it, instead. Whatever the scale of the changes, they will happen during decades, not years. "Economy cease to exist": what does it even mean? There was an economy during WWII, there was an economy during the worst of the middle ages...
    - bigbugbag 9y ago
      I don't know where you get the idea that this kind of change will necessarily happens over decades, a tipping point triggering a change so fast a collapse happens in a matter of days is also among the possibilities. I was referring to things like the Bundeswehr (German military) study that was leaked in 2010 in der spiegel which explored the probable future to better prepare themselves to face it. Here you'll find page 2 of the english version of the der spiegel article reporting on the partial to complete market failure and global chain reaction causing global economy collapse. Fun thins is that this report places the collapse around 2025-2030 same as predicted by the world3 in the 1970's. The other thing I was referring to is a report about the transition period which had a part about risk of violence and war in the event of a societal collapse (they actually evaluated the whole range from steady decline interspersed with rupture points to full civilization collapse), and among the possible scenarios without violence were the ones where the collapse happened fast enough. Sorry I don't have source readily available IIRC I found this report while documenting myself on post oil agriculture in the EU. It is a common misconception to not understand that the upcoming change is unprecedented in human history, it will be nothing like what we have faced before. Expecting it to be something like past events would be a mistake. [1]: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/peak-oil-and-the-german-government-military-study-warns-of-a-potentially-drastic-oil-crisis-a-715138-2.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/peak-oil-and-the... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3
gambiting 9y ago
>>Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Those people won't peacefully move somewhere else. Especially in Europe as the middle east becomes literally unliveable and millions of people will start walking north to just survive another day - I can't imagine even the most tolerant european countries willingly accepting this, especially since it won't happen overnight, but over many decades, with more and more people flowing in. That is bound to cause huge amounts of unrest, possibly civil war/ or just war.

by krautt 9y ago

dwaltrip 9y ago

Widespread and severe agricultural issues, drought, an increase in extreme weather (hurricanes / typhoons / etc), unprecedented heat waves, and others I'm forgetting. This along, with the issues you've mentioned, could result in significant political instability across the world, massive migration issues that could easily dwarf the migration issues of the last decade, perhaps even severe wars, and other disastrous situations. I'm not qualified to give a full description. Some form of the above seems fairly plausible to me if we don't take serious pragmatic action. It's of course incredibly difficult to give meaningful predictions about something this complex. But let's not bet the damn farm on it. It is very well established that there are serious risks. The time has long come for anyone in a relevant position of leadership to accept the responsibility and take effective action.

mathgenius 9y ago

How about the Syrian civil war? "global warming is said to have played a role in sparking the 2011 uprising. Severe drought plagued Syria from 2007-10, causing as many as 1.5 million people to migrate from the countryside into cities, exacerbating poverty and social unrest." http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/2/syrias-civil-war-linked-partly-to-drought-global-warming.html http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/2/syrias-civil-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Drought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Drought

b1daly 9y ago
A not unreasonable hypothesis. Yet the bulk of the destruction is the result of ghastly military actions, aimed at direct destruction of the society. To worry about the contribution of climate change is not pointless. Close to it though.
bigbugbag 9y ago
Also Boko Haram: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/09/behind-rise-nigeria-boko-haram-climate-disaster-peak-oil-depletion https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...

snowwrestler 9y ago

> Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? "Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" The displacement of large numbers of people will cause immense strife. Just look at the nasty reaction to the relatively small migration away from the Syrian civil war. The problem is basically that all the land near populated coastlines is already owned, and those owners are not going to be inclined to let millions of their neighbors move in without some compensation. But if those neighbors' coastal property just got swallowed by the sea, they probably don't have many assets left to pay.

bigbugbag 9y ago
Though the Syrian civil war can be used to illustrate this, a better example is the india - bangladesh fenced wall. Bangladesh is one of the first country and most severely impacted by climate change and this wall has been put in place to stop people bangladesh migrating away from climate change consequences into India. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/indias-fence-of-shame https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/indias-fence-o... http://indianexpress.com/article/india/laser-walls-smart-sensors-at-india-bangladesh-border-soon-4454961/ http://indianexpress.com/article/india/laser-walls-smart-sen...

Red_Tarsius 9y ago

> So it's going to get warmer The life cycle of countless animals and plants is finetuned to our current climate. Crops are also at the mercy of weather patterns. We have no idea whether our food sources will get through the changes. Example of unknown unknown: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/australia-green-sea-turtles-turning-female-climate-change-raine-island-sex-temperature/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/australia-green-... > What's the big deal? We are talking about hundreds of millions of starving people moving away from the coastlines AND the Equator. Example: https://web.archive.org/web/20180107084251/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-unfolding-tragedy-of-climate-change-in-bangladesh/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180107084251/https://blogs.sci... Bangladesh alone has half the population of the US.

bigbugbag 9y ago
> We have no idea whether our food sources will get through the changes. Actually we do, chances are temperature increase by the end of the century will make agriculture impossible in most part of the lands of the planet. > What's the big deal? Simply put, it is a matter of destroying the conditions favorable to human life on this planet.

Alextigtig 9y ago

I was also convinced that this was a reasonable way of looking at things because often the "climate change debate" is portrayed as two-sided; one arguing that climate change isn't a big deal and one arguing that it is. This leads to the false supposition that the true answer lies somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately it does not. For me, one of the most eye-opening experiences was reading an article from the New Yorker the worst of what may happen due to climate change.[0] Because the "climate change is happening" side often tries to ground their claims in research and climate-models, they are rarely apocalyptic or even the slightest bit exaggeratory, while the other side often argues at the opposite extreme of "nothing will happen." I found this article to be helpful in orienting the debate, as it helped me realize that the expected value of doing nothing is really far worse than what I imagined. [0] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-...

eschevarria 9y ago
The New York Magazine is not research. Want to know what the actual research says? Look at figure 10.1 on page 690 of the IPCC’s AR5 WG II report. As it shows, most of the studies on the total impact of climate change for increases between 2.6 and 4.8 °C, which is the range for the IPCC’s highest emissions scenario during the 21st century, result in estimates of the impact on welfare equivalent to a change between 0% and −3% in GNP. Positive effects are included in the estimates, so 0% and two positive values appear outside the range. This is not about the economic impact but about the total impact on welfare, so it really is what is relevant. The factors considered by the studies include variation in agricultural yield, water availability, changes in tourism flow, energy demand, impact on human health, labor productivity. How bad do you think −3% is during the 21st century? That’s less than 0.035% less economic growth starting in 2014 when the Fifth Assessment Report was published. Even a policy that was completely effective at entirely preventing any global warming could only be justified if its cost was otherwise less than 0.035%. The policies we could implement would not be completely effective and would certainly cost more than 0.035%. Therefore the expected value of doing nothing about global warming is higher than the expected value of doing something.

nokcha 9y ago

Melting of the northern permafrost could release a large amount of mercury (estimated around 800 gigagrams). (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16330219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16330219) There is also worry of a positive feedback loop that could cause global warming to spiral out of control. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis)

flycaliguy 9y ago

Ticks are getting worse in my neck of the woods. If they keep getting worse, that would really suck.

giarc 9y ago
Your comment is a bit greyed out, meaning you are getting downvotes. However you are right. Climate change means migration of disease vectors such as ticks and mosquitos into places they didn't survive before. One only has to look at Zika virus and the Aedes mosquito as an example.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Look at how Lyme Disease is getting into Canada (Ontario and Quebec) with climate change allowing ticks to expand their territory.

oldandtired 9y ago

As far as sea-level rises are concerned, the Arctic sea ice will probably be a net sea-level fall, except around the Equator. If all of the Greenland glaciers were to disappear, well then, we would see a sea-level rise, globally. But it would be distributed unevenly across the world. The higher levels would again be around the Equator with decreasing levels the further north or south of the Equator you go. But to get even a 1/3 of the Greenland ice cover to melt requires an unimaginably large amount of energy to do so. I'd have more concerns about the devastation of that much energy on the atmosphere than I do about any trivial amount of ice melt and associated sea-level rise. The planet is close to being a steady state system, that is the energy inflows from the day side is about equivalent to the energy outflows on the night side. This varies throughout the year due to various factors, including orbital position, solar energy output, climate factors like clouds, etc. The required energy to get 1/3 of Greenland glacial melt is approximately about the amount of energy received by the Earth on a single day, without any of that energy being released on the night side. Due to the slow conductivity of water in both solid and liquid forms, the atmosphere would need to essentially hold all of that energy. Even over a hundred years, that would probably mean atmospheric temperatures that would probably kill most, if not all, life on the surface of the planet. There has been one study (that I know of) that has looked at the retention of energy over a period of about 50 years and the conclusion was that only 2 to maybe 5% of the energy retained managed to get into ice-melt. So to get the required ice-melt energy needed, we would need, say, 20 to 25 days worth of solar input radiation to be fully retained within the atmosphere (no leakage back into space). In addition, I somehow think that even a 5 or 10 degree Celsius temperature rise would lead quickly to a sharp fall in global temperatures and would the initiation of a global ice-age. Since the planet has an approximate coverage by oceans and sea ice of 70%, an average rise of 5 to 10 degrees would more than likely see a huge rise in cloud coverage and subsequent reflection of energy back out into space, followed by a subsequent rapid cooling of the globe. Of course, these figures are dependent on common available information and could be wrong by some percentage. It's not hard to do your own calculations if you want to get some feel for what might be possible.

yters 9y ago
It is interesting the other comments in this area are vague and emotional, whereas the only thought out comment is downvoted because it is critical of global warming. This constant dynamic is what makes me skeptical of the whole global warming thing.

panarky 9y ago

War.

rdiddly 9y ago
Good God y'all

gremlinsinc 9y ago

You ever see interstellar? Bad news -- drought/blight/warmth could destroy crops...perhaps even be an extinction level event. Good news -- there is none.. likelihood of aliens or future humans saving us is next to nil. I think we have maybe 50 years till we're close to any near ELE but my kid might see it.

jsilence 9y ago
Ask Paul Beckwith about the fifty year estimate.
RandomCSGeek 9y ago
AFAIK, the current rate of species extinction is exponentially faster than the previous ones. So "perhaps" might not be a suitable word.
bigbugbag 9y ago
The anthropocene mass extinction event has been happening for a while now. IIRC we were warned about it in 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_Humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_H...

polotics 9y ago

Not just warmer: less stable. Most likely feedback loop to you is crop failures, mass starvation, conflicts. Do not rule out extreme weather events as well.

WhitneyLand 9y ago

Is the problem really not knowing? Because even you don’t know, is it not enough that virtually all credible scientists are warning us of the very bad things we are at risk of? I know you are not debating the issue, but to me one of the most interesting questions is why do people deny this even when they have no vested interest? One obvious answer is that it’s become a party platform issue and those that do have an interest have poisoned the well of thought for large numbers of people. Maybe that’s part of it, but it’s hard to believe it’s that simplistic and there is no other psychology at play. Whatever lack of respect one has for an opposing political party, you’d think after hearing enough doomsday scenarios it would at least be worth digging in a little to see what all the fuss is about.

yters 9y ago
For me it is hand wavy doomsday scenarios that makes me skeptical, along with hand wavy predictions that don't come true. My thought is that if it truly was as serious as people say, the evidence and argument would feel a lot more solid and there would be less fearmongering.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  I'm not sure what doomsday scenarios and failed predictions you're referring to but even though for some reason it feels otherwise to you evidence and argument is quite solid. Seems you may be victim of a bias of some kind here[1], or have been exposed to some misinformation of some kind. [1]: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/01/30/yanss-094-how-motivated-skepticism-strengthens-incorrect-beliefs/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/01/30/yanss-094-how-motiva...
  - yters 9y ago
    Doomsday scenarios in the public imagination. For instance, I saw a commercial in a UK theatre that showed people drowning in city streets due to global warming. That's ridiculous. I've heard claims the Maledives will be submerged in X years, even though the Maledives are coral islands that will rise with the sea level increase. Then I see lots of conjecture that this or that tragedy is attributable to global warming. In general, there is a lot of alarmism, but it is hard to pin down what exactly the problem is. Maybe you can clarify. What is a specific problem we face that is directly attributable to global warming?

pmarreck 9y ago

Most first-worlders won't see much difference. Poor people in equatorial regions that are already on the edge of uninhabitability without air conditioning will start to experience actual uninhabitability unless underground or air-conditioning solutions are procured (and even then, things will get very very uncomfortable outdoors for portions of the year) Again, this will affect the most vulnerable people on the earth first: "A study by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2009)[120] estimated the effect of climate change on human health. Not all of the effects of climate change were included in their estimates, for example, the effects of more frequent and extreme storms were excluded. Climate change was estimated to have been responsible for 3% of diarrhoea, 3% of malaria, and 3.8% of dengue fever deaths worldwide in 2004. Total attributable mortality was about 0.2% of deaths in 2004; of these, 85% were child deaths." (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming)

bigbugbag 9y ago
I'm a first worlder and I've been seeing the difference for over a decade now. I'm close to convinced that first world is the worst place to be as the chances of survival are the worst due to the country being almost entirely dependent on importations for its needs and has outsourced most and lost its ability to sustain itself while lacking reserves. I think first worlders will be among those hit the harder because they will lose almost everything they're used to and left with the inability to live as the grand parents did for they have forgotten this knowledge.

onion2k 9y ago

Would melting sea ice lead to a rise in sea level? The ice is floating, so it's displacing the approximately same mass of water as it contains. If it melts the overall water level shouldn't change.

Symbiote 9y ago
The ice on Antarctica is on land.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  The ice on Antarctica is not exactly melting at an alarming rate.
RandomCSGeek 9y ago
Although you are right, note that liquid water expands as it heats. Also, not all ice is floating.
symmetricsaurus 9y ago
This is correct, melting sea ice does not lead to a rise in sea level. It’s the melting of glaciers and ice sheets (on Greenland for example) that cause the sea level to rise.
flukus 9y ago
1. Thermal expansion. It's a tiny effect, you won't see it in a glass of water in science class but when you've got oceans a few kilometers deep and humans living a few meters above them it can have an impact. 2. It's a feedback effect. Less ice means less light reflected means more energy in our oceans/atmosphere. In turn this creates more ice loss that won't be sea ice.
- gaius 9y ago
  Water expands as it freezes. That’s why pipes burst in winter.

tbabb 9y ago

The very real possibility of 98% of life on Earth dying? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

RandomCSGeek 9y ago

A huge part of world's population lives on coastal cities. When cities like Mumbai and Dhaka will start to submerge, you can imagine the havoc that will cause. Also, some countries like maldives will completely submerge. I don't think europeans would be very happy about accepting these people, given the situation that has arisen from Middle eastern migration. A lot of wildlife requires specific environmental situation. A lot of species won't survive changes in temperature. Most poor people will have hard time surviving either increased flooding or increased droughts. Where I live(South MH, India), we are already facing drought every other year, and I am preety sure this is going to get worse. Millions live in this area. Where do you think we will move when we don't have water? (clue: look for places with more water) So in short, huge parts of world either get submerged in sea, suffer from severe droughts/flooding, from desertification, or from the destruction of crops. Without food, water and land, people migrate in large numbers, and thus exert more pressure on those places. Some experts believe that a war is likely between India and China over water in next decade. I haven't touched the issue of lack of antibiotics and resurgence of old diseases at all.

lazyjones 9y ago
> When cities like Mumbai and Dhaka will start to submerge, you can imagine the havoc that will cause. Actually, no, I can't. This won't happen overnight, cities will just slowly move away from the coastline. It will take hundreds of years to cover such cities with water (if ever).
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  Current estimations say this could happen around 2040-2050 and will happen before the end of the century. so not centuries but decades. And it will happen as the rise of sea level would not stop even if we stopped the increase of temperature instantly due to inertia.
bigbugbag 9y ago
Most of what you mention is actually a problem solving itself. One of the cause of man made climate change is overpopulation, with most of the human population being crammed into megacities of which many are coastal it means the overpopulation will probably fix itself with people living in big cities mass dying. Big and not that big cities do not produce enough food and water for themselves, density of population means they will be hotspots for contagious diseases, means of transportation out of those cities do not allow for mass migration, all these and more means those people are likely to die. On the other hand people living in the countryside, are able to grow food, have knowledge of local plants and generally can sustain themselves have much better chance to survive the catastrophic events to come. Though some experts think a war over water between India and China is possible, other think the collapse will happen so fast that it will wipe all possibility of military action and leave only people that will have no choice but work together to survive. This scenario is also likely. It's been a while since I've been in India but imho this is one the places on earth with potential to survive climate change.

rdiddly 9y ago

No one seems to have said yet: Billions of dollars in immobile port infrastructure made useless and having to be rebuilt further inland

avip 9y ago

Nothing to see here folks, we're just "displacing" 15% [1] of the world population. What could possibly go wrong? [1] number invented for brevity.

danmaz74 9y ago

If the temperature increases several degrees, hundreds of million - maybe even billion - of people will be displaced not just from the coastlines, but also from areas becoming desertified. Can you imagine the economic distress, humanitarian crises, and the conflicts this can generate?

bigbugbag 9y ago
I think you are downplaying it a bit here. The temperature is already well on its path of increasing several degrees. Economy will probably cease to exist. There will be no humanitarian crisis but simply people mass dying. The "conflicts" may be nukes or sticks and stones but there's also a possibility that there will be relatively few conflicts depending on the strength of the culture of selfish in the local area.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  I honestly think you're overplaying it, instead. Whatever the scale of the changes, they will happen during decades, not years. "Economy cease to exist": what does it even mean? There was an economy during WWII, there was an economy during the worst of the middle ages...
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    I don't know where you get the idea that this kind of change will necessarily happens over decades, a tipping point triggering a change so fast a collapse happens in a matter of days is also among the possibilities. I was referring to things like the Bundeswehr (German military) study that was leaked in 2010 in der spiegel which explored the probable future to better prepare themselves to face it. Here you'll find page 2 of the english version of the der spiegel article reporting on the partial to complete market failure and global chain reaction causing global economy collapse. Fun thins is that this report places the collapse around 2025-2030 same as predicted by the world3 in the 1970's. The other thing I was referring to is a report about the transition period which had a part about risk of violence and war in the event of a societal collapse (they actually evaluated the whole range from steady decline interspersed with rupture points to full civilization collapse), and among the possible scenarios without violence were the ones where the collapse happened fast enough. Sorry I don't have source readily available IIRC I found this report while documenting myself on post oil agriculture in the EU. It is a common misconception to not understand that the upcoming change is unprecedented in human history, it will be nothing like what we have faced before. Expecting it to be something like past events would be a mistake. [1]: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/peak-oil-and-the-german-government-military-study-warns-of-a-potentially-drastic-oil-crisis-a-715138-2.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/peak-oil-and-the... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3

gambiting 9y ago

>>Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Those people won't peacefully move somewhere else. Especially in Europe as the middle east becomes literally unliveable and millions of people will start walking north to just survive another day - I can't imagine even the most tolerant european countries willingly accepting this, especially since it won't happen overnight, but over many decades, with more and more people flowing in. That is bound to cause huge amounts of unrest, possibly civil war/ or just war.