3 ms·

"why are the estimated GDP numbers not coming in much worse?" A guess: Because the hardest hit areas do not contribute as much to GDP. Most of world GDP is cre

by fsloth 8y ago

"why are the estimated GDP numbers not coming in much worse?" A guess: Because the hardest hit areas do not contribute as much to GDP. Most of world GDP is created outside of the tropics. The gruesome prediction from this report is that the poor areas next to tropics will come refugess camps unlike anything seen before (think Blade Runner or Judge Dread with the skycrapers replaced by an ocean of tents and shacks). And the rich world will invest in border controls and barbed wire.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Why would you expect this instead of people simply gradually moving inland and continuing to do more or less exactly what they were already doing? The developing world and developed are identical in that population densities are extremely disproportionate. We tend to have very high densities near water and much lower densities inland. This creates a dual effect of magnifying the numeric impact of climate change, but also giving us immense 'safe' buffers. If we view climate change as a sort of terraforming then the primary effect would be to push coastal regions further inland - not to permanently remove them. And even in in the low probability worst case scenarios water levels will begin to plateau off simply because there's a fixed amount of possible water on Earth. This [1] National Geographic article from a while back showed exactly what the world would look like if all the ice melted, resulting the maximal possible increase in sea levels - about 216 feet. The peculiar thing is the world would be reshaped, but it'd mostly be the exact same place. And keep in mind that this would happen over many many decades as the sea levels inched forward, thus giving people time to calmly and orderly adjust. It's not like one day you go to bed and when you wake up New York is New Atlantis. [1] - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-s...
- fsloth 8y ago
  "Why would you expect this instead of people simply gradually moving inland" Please read the article. The gradient of liveability is not away from the shores. It's away from the equator.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    No, it's not. The real risk is in coastal areas, as the article emphasizes. The headline is based on the quote "[The] United States along with Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam are home to 50 million people who will be exposed to the effects of increased coastal flooding by 2040, if 2.7 degrees of warming occur." I'm unsure if I'm reading too much into your comment as it was not particularly informative, but you seem to be implying that the problem with climate change is the warming itself, which will be most pronounced around the areas most exposed to the sun's energy -- the equatorial regions. But this isn't the issue. Humans, plants, and animals of all sorts could be fine with temperatures much higher than they are now if that's all that changed. The real risk of climate change is the ancillary effects like the rising of tides. This effect will be most pronounced in coastal areas with dense population hubs - which are the exact areas they mention. And this is already happening. For instance the most recent storms we've had including in Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana and so on were likely at least somewhat exasperated by climate change. And indeed there are people that are going to decide enough is enough and decide to move inland. These are now part of the people counted in these numbers. Something people often forget is that climate change is not something that will happen, but something that is happening.
    - fsloth 8y ago
      Sure, coasts will have issues, but like you said yourself, there is quite a lot of land mass to to absorb the population likely within the same polity. I've understood the predicted changes to weather patterns are such that the area between the tropics will be most impacted. This includes more droughts etc. So it's not directly related to sun's radiation, just about how the heat will be distributed in the global weather and what effects it will have. I don't know why tropics are more affected than other areas. https://theconversation.com/why-blowing-the-1-5c-global-warming-goal-will-leave-poor-tropical-nations-sweating-most-of-all-96988 https://theconversation.com/why-blowing-the-1-5c-global-warm... I only slightly exaggerated my comments about telt camp conurbations. People are already drowning by the thousands trying to reach Europe via Mediterranean crossing because the landmass of Africa offers so little hope for the future even risking drowning is better than staying. Imagine how much worse it will get when the climate gets more inhospitable (the problems are not caused by climate but by corruption but worse climate is not going to help the issue).

by fsloth 8y ago

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

Why would you expect this instead of people simply gradually moving inland and continuing to do more or less exactly what they were already doing? The developing world and developed are identical in that population densities are extremely disproportionate. We tend to have very high densities near water and much lower densities inland. This creates a dual effect of magnifying the numeric impact of climate change, but also giving us immense 'safe' buffers. If we view climate change as a sort of terraforming then the primary effect would be to push coastal regions further inland - not to permanently remove them. And even in in the low probability worst case scenarios water levels will begin to plateau off simply because there's a fixed amount of possible water on Earth. This [1] National Geographic article from a while back showed exactly what the world would look like if all the ice melted, resulting the maximal possible increase in sea levels - about 216 feet. The peculiar thing is the world would be reshaped, but it'd mostly be the exact same place. And keep in mind that this would happen over many many decades as the sea levels inched forward, thus giving people time to calmly and orderly adjust. It's not like one day you go to bed and when you wake up New York is New Atlantis. [1] - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-s...

fsloth 8y ago
"Why would you expect this instead of people simply gradually moving inland" Please read the article. The gradient of liveability is not away from the shores. It's away from the equator.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  No, it's not. The real risk is in coastal areas, as the article emphasizes. The headline is based on the quote "[The] United States along with Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam are home to 50 million people who will be exposed to the effects of increased coastal flooding by 2040, if 2.7 degrees of warming occur." I'm unsure if I'm reading too much into your comment as it was not particularly informative, but you seem to be implying that the problem with climate change is the warming itself, which will be most pronounced around the areas most exposed to the sun's energy -- the equatorial regions. But this isn't the issue. Humans, plants, and animals of all sorts could be fine with temperatures much higher than they are now if that's all that changed. The real risk of climate change is the ancillary effects like the rising of tides. This effect will be most pronounced in coastal areas with dense population hubs - which are the exact areas they mention. And this is already happening. For instance the most recent storms we've had including in Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana and so on were likely at least somewhat exasperated by climate change. And indeed there are people that are going to decide enough is enough and decide to move inland. These are now part of the people counted in these numbers. Something people often forget is that climate change is not something that will happen, but something that is happening.
  - fsloth 8y ago
    Sure, coasts will have issues, but like you said yourself, there is quite a lot of land mass to to absorb the population likely within the same polity. I've understood the predicted changes to weather patterns are such that the area between the tropics will be most impacted. This includes more droughts etc. So it's not directly related to sun's radiation, just about how the heat will be distributed in the global weather and what effects it will have. I don't know why tropics are more affected than other areas. https://theconversation.com/why-blowing-the-1-5c-global-warming-goal-will-leave-poor-tropical-nations-sweating-most-of-all-96988 https://theconversation.com/why-blowing-the-1-5c-global-warm... I only slightly exaggerated my comments about telt camp conurbations. People are already drowning by the thousands trying to reach Europe via Mediterranean crossing because the landmass of Africa offers so little hope for the future even risking drowning is better than staying. Imagine how much worse it will get when the climate gets more inhospitable (the problems are not caused by climate but by corruption but worse climate is not going to help the issue).