3 ms·

So, does this show that fisheries will be more productive with 1.5C or 3.5C warming vs 0C? A difference of 6.5% biomass between 1.5C and 3.5C doesn't warrant tr

So, does this show that fisheries will be more productive with 1.5C or 3.5C warming vs 0C? A difference of 6.5% biomass between 1.5C and 3.5C doesn't warrant trillions of spending, IMO. This along with 1-4ft increase in sealevel[1] over 100 years begs the question, so what? [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

benj111 8y ago
People living near the coast (hint most of the global population) would probably disagree with you.
- eanzenberg 8y ago
  Why? 1-4ft sealevel increase is nothing
  - benj111 8y ago
    Not if your home is 3ft above sea level.
    - eanzenberg 8y ago
      Impossible due to tides
      - benj111 8y ago
        How is it impossible, if the tidal range is less than 3 ft, your house could be less that 3 foot above sea level and not get wet.
        eanzenberg 8y ago
        Where is tide less than 3 ft?
        benj111 8y ago
        Mediterranean, Caribbean Sea. Google can answer these things relatively simply.
14 8y ago
We want a zero degree increase things are good as they have been for thousands of years. Now if we go up to 1.5C we lose a lot of fish. We will have 6.5% more fish then if we go to 3C increase so the "so what" is we stand to lose millions of peoples jobs, livelihoods, and the only way they feed their families. It means by doing nothing we are potentially sentencing millions of people to their demise. I just don't get how anyone can sit here and say "so what". And I truly do think this is a rich person problem too because you watch what happens when millions of people are pushed from their homes in a short period of time it will be pandemonium. What are we going to do when essentially an entire nation is pushed from their homes? What country is going to accept them or do we just let them die? So for me there is a huge amount at risk if their estimates in this study are true. I have kids that I want to leave a future earth to.
- ZeroFries 8y ago
  Here's the thing though: if we actively do something to stop carbon production, we will also be losing economic wellbeing. Developing nations will be hit harder by this cutback, too. The question is is the trade-off worth it, relative to other things we could be putting our time and attention to. According to this think tank (1), it doesn't pay out so well, compared to other goals. 1: https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/top-outcomes https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/top-outcomes
tony_cannistra 8y ago
Good question. The research done by these folks suggests the following (from the article): > "They found that if climate change is limited to 1.5 °C, the biomass of the top revenue-generating fish species will be on average 6.5% higher than it would be with 3.5 °C of warming. Sustainable catch levels of these species will be 7.3%, or 3.3 million metric tons, greater than they would be if we stay on our current trajectory." So, 1.5C warming is better than 3.5C warming because the top-revenue-generating fish biomass with 1.5C warming is 6.5% higher than with 3.5 C warming. Put another way, excessive warming (3.5C) decreases fish biomass availability relative to less extreme warming scenarios. Curtailing the progression of climatic warming, therefore, appears to be an important step in ensuring sustainable fish stocks. This is the "so what."
ianleeclark 8y ago
Well the thing is that there are other countries and other countries may be disproportionately affected by climate change, for example: "Around the Mediterranean, freshwater availability will drop by almost twice as much at 2 degrees as at 1.5 — 17 percent versus 9 percent," or "But even getting up to 2 degrees, 'tropical regions like West Africa, South-East Asia, as well as Central and northern South America are projected to face substantial local yield reductions, particularly for wheat and maize.' https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/1690840... So, yeah, you might have more productive fisheries, but the cost is the death of millions of humans. There's also no true indication we will keep climate change within that 1.5 to 3.5c window, so it's unknowable what the true cost would be.

benj111 8y ago

People living near the coast (hint most of the global population) would probably disagree with you.

eanzenberg 8y ago
Why? 1-4ft sealevel increase is nothing
- benj111 8y ago
  Not if your home is 3ft above sea level.
  - eanzenberg 8y ago
    Impossible due to tides
    - benj111 8y ago
      How is it impossible, if the tidal range is less than 3 ft, your house could be less that 3 foot above sea level and not get wet.
      - eanzenberg 8y ago
        Where is tide less than 3 ft?
        benj111 8y ago
        Mediterranean, Caribbean Sea. Google can answer these things relatively simply.

14 8y ago

We want a zero degree increase things are good as they have been for thousands of years. Now if we go up to 1.5C we lose a lot of fish. We will have 6.5% more fish then if we go to 3C increase so the "so what" is we stand to lose millions of peoples jobs, livelihoods, and the only way they feed their families. It means by doing nothing we are potentially sentencing millions of people to their demise. I just don't get how anyone can sit here and say "so what". And I truly do think this is a rich person problem too because you watch what happens when millions of people are pushed from their homes in a short period of time it will be pandemonium. What are we going to do when essentially an entire nation is pushed from their homes? What country is going to accept them or do we just let them die? So for me there is a huge amount at risk if their estimates in this study are true. I have kids that I want to leave a future earth to.

ZeroFries 8y ago
Here's the thing though: if we actively do something to stop carbon production, we will also be losing economic wellbeing. Developing nations will be hit harder by this cutback, too. The question is is the trade-off worth it, relative to other things we could be putting our time and attention to. According to this think tank (1), it doesn't pay out so well, compared to other goals. 1: https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/top-outcomes https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/top-outcomes

tony_cannistra 8y ago

Good question. The research done by these folks suggests the following (from the article): > "They found that if climate change is limited to 1.5 °C, the biomass of the top revenue-generating fish species will be on average 6.5% higher than it would be with 3.5 °C of warming. Sustainable catch levels of these species will be 7.3%, or 3.3 million metric tons, greater than they would be if we stay on our current trajectory." So, 1.5C warming is better than 3.5C warming because the top-revenue-generating fish biomass with 1.5C warming is 6.5% higher than with 3.5 C warming. Put another way, excessive warming (3.5C) decreases fish biomass availability relative to less extreme warming scenarios. Curtailing the progression of climatic warming, therefore, appears to be an important step in ensuring sustainable fish stocks. This is the "so what."

ianleeclark 8y ago

Well the thing is that there are other countries and other countries may be disproportionately affected by climate change, for example: "Around the Mediterranean, freshwater availability will drop by almost twice as much at 2 degrees as at 1.5 — 17 percent versus 9 percent," or "But even getting up to 2 degrees, 'tropical regions like West Africa, South-East Asia, as well as Central and northern South America are projected to face substantial local yield reductions, particularly for wheat and maize.' https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/16908402/global-warming-2-degrees-climate-change https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/19/1690840... So, yeah, you might have more productive fisheries, but the cost is the death of millions of humans. There's also no true indication we will keep climate change within that 1.5 to 3.5c window, so it's unknowable what the true cost would be.