4 ms·

Everywhere in the world, at least 5 meters above see level that have maximum temperatures below 40 degrees celsius will be livable, as long as economic output i

Everywhere in the world, at least 5 meters above see level that have maximum temperatures below 40 degrees celsius will be livable, as long as economic output is sufficient to purchase food (if it cannot be grown locally any more). Just like Dubai is livable today.

konschubert 8y ago
Yes but which regions will still have maximum temperatures below 40 degrees Celsius at that point, at least on most days of the year? A 4 degree change worldwide is easily a 10 degree change over continents, and that's just the average! From what I understand, that can easily mean a 20 or 30 degree change in max temperatures, or does it? I'm saying Central Europe 60 degrees Celsius on a normal summer day. Please tell me I'm wrong, but that's the understanding I've gained so far
- trashtester 8y ago
  60 degrees C is almost impossible in non-desert areas (due to evaporation of moisture). The practical limit, today, in tropical areas is about 45 degrees, and at that point, it's getting deadly. Which also answers the first question. Future temperatures of up to 45 degrees will be survivable. Exactly where that will be, is complicated, but anywhere north of the alps in Europe should be too far north, as should the northerns states in the US. That does not mean that every place further south will be unlivable, only that it the risk is higher. Spain, Italy, Texas and California could start looking like Sahara, or it could be more similar to Egypt or Thailand, depending on how rainfall patterns change. In any case, if we look 50 years into the future, who knows what kind of technologies we would be able to leverage to mitigate these problems?
  - bigbugbag 8y ago
    > In any case, if we look 50 years into the future, who knows what kind of technologies we would be able to leverage to mitigate these problems? Scientists and technologists that have been warning us that no technological solution will be able to address the climate change consequences, and they've been telling us for several decades which makes it weird that people still do not know about this. Well there is one potential biotech solution which is engineering a fatal panpidemy that would wipe out almost all humans from the surface of earth as was presented in Texas a few years ago but IIRC the conclusion was that for now this seems to be an unreachable goal as no agents combines all required characteristics for such a pandemy to happen.
    - trashtester 8y ago
      > Scientists and technologists that have been warning us that no technological solution will be able to address the climate change consequences, and they've been telling us for several decades which makes it weird that people still do not know about this. Most scientists that I know would not make absolute statements like this. What the WOULD say, is that we should not rely on this happening. When Thomas Malthus made his predictions 200 years ago, he was right about his core prediction (population increase), but underestimated technological growth. The truth is that we have almost no clue about what technological revolutions will happen over the next 50-200 years, if any, and how they will impact us.
bigbugbag 8y ago
A global 4° celsius increase would mean at least a 7-8° increase on continental land which means the end of agriculture on land. This kind of defeats your wishful thinking. This is not some random idea but something out of the GIEC documents and talks.
- trashtester 8y ago
  That is a good point, primarily because it would make staying outdoors dangerous in a number of additional places. For farming, I'm not sure it's that clear. Many of these studies only consider the negative impacts. Obviously, many places would be left arid. But 7-8 temperature increase, along with increased rainfall (evaporated water has to come down somewhere), will massively increase the farming potential in places like Siberia, inland China and Canada. Increased rainfall can also potentially lead to absurd-sounding things such as rice farms in present-day Sahara. Finally, as you alluded to, aquatic farming has a huge potential. We are beyond the point where food production has to be local. As long as there is enough food globally, economically prosperous areas can buy the food they need. Also, keep in mind that when talking about a 4 degree increase, it is assumed to happen over several centuries. At the present rate of technologial development, it is impossible to say what impact it would have, as food production 200 years in the future is likely to be as different from today as it was 200 years in the past. Still, I absolutely think that at 4 degrees (at least if it happens within 200 years), the results would be a major catastrophy. Provided that we haven't been already wiped out (or domesticated) by runaway AI's or nuclear war, of course. (Both of which concern me more over the next 200 years)

konschubert 8y ago

Yes but which regions will still have maximum temperatures below 40 degrees Celsius at that point, at least on most days of the year? A 4 degree change worldwide is easily a 10 degree change over continents, and that's just the average! From what I understand, that can easily mean a 20 or 30 degree change in max temperatures, or does it? I'm saying Central Europe 60 degrees Celsius on a normal summer day. Please tell me I'm wrong, but that's the understanding I've gained so far

trashtester 8y ago
60 degrees C is almost impossible in non-desert areas (due to evaporation of moisture). The practical limit, today, in tropical areas is about 45 degrees, and at that point, it's getting deadly. Which also answers the first question. Future temperatures of up to 45 degrees will be survivable. Exactly where that will be, is complicated, but anywhere north of the alps in Europe should be too far north, as should the northerns states in the US. That does not mean that every place further south will be unlivable, only that it the risk is higher. Spain, Italy, Texas and California could start looking like Sahara, or it could be more similar to Egypt or Thailand, depending on how rainfall patterns change. In any case, if we look 50 years into the future, who knows what kind of technologies we would be able to leverage to mitigate these problems?
- bigbugbag 8y ago
  > In any case, if we look 50 years into the future, who knows what kind of technologies we would be able to leverage to mitigate these problems? Scientists and technologists that have been warning us that no technological solution will be able to address the climate change consequences, and they've been telling us for several decades which makes it weird that people still do not know about this. Well there is one potential biotech solution which is engineering a fatal panpidemy that would wipe out almost all humans from the surface of earth as was presented in Texas a few years ago but IIRC the conclusion was that for now this seems to be an unreachable goal as no agents combines all required characteristics for such a pandemy to happen.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    > Scientists and technologists that have been warning us that no technological solution will be able to address the climate change consequences, and they've been telling us for several decades which makes it weird that people still do not know about this. Most scientists that I know would not make absolute statements like this. What the WOULD say, is that we should not rely on this happening. When Thomas Malthus made his predictions 200 years ago, he was right about his core prediction (population increase), but underestimated technological growth. The truth is that we have almost no clue about what technological revolutions will happen over the next 50-200 years, if any, and how they will impact us.

bigbugbag 8y ago

A global 4° celsius increase would mean at least a 7-8° increase on continental land which means the end of agriculture on land. This kind of defeats your wishful thinking. This is not some random idea but something out of the GIEC documents and talks.

trashtester 8y ago
That is a good point, primarily because it would make staying outdoors dangerous in a number of additional places. For farming, I'm not sure it's that clear. Many of these studies only consider the negative impacts. Obviously, many places would be left arid. But 7-8 temperature increase, along with increased rainfall (evaporated water has to come down somewhere), will massively increase the farming potential in places like Siberia, inland China and Canada. Increased rainfall can also potentially lead to absurd-sounding things such as rice farms in present-day Sahara. Finally, as you alluded to, aquatic farming has a huge potential. We are beyond the point where food production has to be local. As long as there is enough food globally, economically prosperous areas can buy the food they need. Also, keep in mind that when talking about a 4 degree increase, it is assumed to happen over several centuries. At the present rate of technologial development, it is impossible to say what impact it would have, as food production 200 years in the future is likely to be as different from today as it was 200 years in the past. Still, I absolutely think that at 4 degrees (at least if it happens within 200 years), the results would be a major catastrophy. Provided that we haven't been already wiped out (or domesticated) by runaway AI's or nuclear war, of course. (Both of which concern me more over the next 200 years)