6 ms·

I've thought a lot about climate change and it's consequences. If we trigger runaway warming through feedback loops involved permafrost and ocean (hydrates) met

by eloff 7y ago

I've thought a lot about climate change and it's consequences. If we trigger runaway warming through feedback loops involved permafrost and ocean (hydrates) methane - things are going to get really, really bad. This happened when ~5C degree warming from millions of years of the Siberian traps eruptions caused methane hydrates to be released into the atmosphere, triggering another ~5C warming and the greatest mass extinction on Earth, the End-Permian Extinction, also known as "the Great Dying" where 96% of marine species went extinct, and 70% of terrestrial species. Clearly if that happens, we're really in trouble. I don't know how likely that is, or what the trigger point would be. The climate today is not the same as it was 250M years ago. On the other side of the coin, the Earth is uncomfortably cool these last few million years. We have these repeated periods of glaciation. Having Europe, Russia, Canada, and the northern US ground to dust beneath kilometers of ice would be a bit of tragedy too on a similar scale. That it's further away in the future doesn't make it less of a problem - if we're too aggressive solving climate change we could imagine a future where we have to deliberately pump methane into the atmosphere to stave off an ice age. For better or worse we seem to be at no risk of this through our ineptitude in responding to climate change. For people worried about coral reefs dying, it happened less than 10K year ago at the end of the last ice age. Sea level rose 400ft and drowned the world's coral reefs. They bounced back, as you can see today. They will also bounce back from climate change - it will just suck in the meanwhile. There are undoubtedly things we can and will do to make it suck less, like developing heat resistant corals, planting reefs further north/south, etc. For people worried about coastal cities being submerged, relax, you'll be dead by then. Long term, we should be moving our investment to more sustainable areas. But infrastructure doesn't last forever anyway, so I think a lot of that may occur naturally as people just stop developing new infrastructure in low-lying areas. There's no question it will cost us though. If you're really worried about climate change for your descendants, get Canadian citizenship. That's one of the few countries likely to benefit from climate change. So to sum up, climate change is not all bad, just mostly bad, until or unless it runs away on us, and then the doomsayers may be right for a change.

vonmoltke 7y ago
> This happened when ~5C degree warming from millions of years of the Siberian traps eruptions caused methane hydrates to be released into the atmosphere, triggering another ~5C warming and the greatest mass extinction on Earth, the End-Permian Extinction, also known as "the Great Dying" where 96% of marine species went extinct, and 70% of terrestrial species. That's a theory for what happened, but as I understand it the cause of this extinction has not been conclusively proved.
- eloff 7y ago
  Yes, it's the leading theory. That doesn't mean is true, just the most likely explanation for the data we have now. Hardly anything is "conclusively proved", although theories we can design experiments for are much more robust than theories about historical or geological events where we don't have that luxury.
perfunctory 7y ago
> relax, you'll be dead by then This is part of the reason so little is being done to combat climate change now. If we don't act now though, the future generations will definitely drown. It will be too late for them to do anything. > That's one of the few countries likely to benefit from climate change. This is one of the most dangerous delusions. In our globalised interconnected world nobody will benefit. Just think about the last financial crisis. Mortgage crisis in the US caused chaos in the whole world.
- eloff 7y ago
  Nobody is going to drown. People will do some combination of building walls, raising land, and moving. It will play out over a period of a thousands years or more. There will be a non-zero cost associated with diverting resources for these things, but that's not the end of the world. I'm not saying it's an excuse for not acting though. We have a responsibility to take care of our own mess, rather than just dump it on our children. I still think the comparative lack of low-lying coastal land, plus ample freshwater, increased growing season, and increased arable land will be net benefit for Canada and Russia. Plus if things are as bad as you say, they'll benefit from increased demand for immigration as well (even if you don't take on more people, you can select more desirable immigrants.) This is not a crash situation like 2008, this is more like a glacier that's flowing towards you. You have plenty of time to plan your response, like moving out of the way, but you can't stop it. Trouble in other countries will have unpredictable, but not necessarily all bad effects.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Is it now? The predictions are, as far as I understand, that a lot of coastal areas will become submerged this century, meanwhile the rising temperatures will (and already are) mess up with the food supply. As that accelerates, the world will see a migration wave like never before in history, and frankly, it sounds like straight to World War 3 from here to me. The planet, frankly, doesn't matter. It'll be fine. The thing that matters is our technological civilization. Whether it's a gun or a glacier, our civilization is fragile, and when it fails, it's essentially game over for humanity - mass deaths followed by the remaining survivors stuck in medieval conditions for many thousands, or tens of thousands of years.
asdfman123 7y ago
The real thing I fear involving climate change is civilization collapse, or at least famine and warfare. I fear a future where there are a lot of very, very angry, hungry people, lead by governments with nuclear weapons. This is just based on my casual reading of events and history. If anyone knows of any good articles talking about this sort of thing, link me.
- GVIrish 7y ago
  People should be very worried about this. Some parts of the world are already unstable, imagine what happens when food supplies dramatically contract or areas are hit with multiple weather disasters. There is a lot of strain and turmoil over migrations as is (see Syria), imagine what that looks like when hundreds of millions of people are displaced. What happens when millions of hungry and displaced people try to move across borders to countries that are their outright enemies? Or if an already oppressed ethnic group is hit with a water crisis? One doesn't need to look far into history to see that it could lead to mass murder
Robotbeat 7y ago
Sea level rise under the "business as usual" RCP 8.5 scenario is 0.5 to 1 meter by 2100. Combined with increased storm intensity and existing subsidence rates, and this a very large increase that will swamp many lower lying cities, including much of the area where I work today. "You'll long be dead" applies to the elderly politicians currently driving policies and laughing/mocking young climate activists. But the young climate activists like Greta or younger probably WILL be alive by 2100. Most of my children will still be alive by then, and when (if) I have grandchildren, they definitely will. I think it's absurd to not give a crap about the fate of my children. "Relax, you'll be long dead" is a statement contingent on the generation. The Boomers and older, who hold the vast majority of the world's wealth, have the least at stake while the young people currently striking have the most at stake. Climate denialism is basically an economic war on the young.
- eloff 7y ago
  You're the only one talking about not giving a crap. Don't strawman my argument. 50-100cm of sea-level rise over a period of 100 years is a non-issue really. Most places won't be affected and those that will be have time to employ one of the three strategies mentioned. Everyone alive will be dead before it starts to really bite - that does not equate to permission "not to give a crap" to be perfectly clear. It's also not climate denialism to talk about the facts, which I shouldn't need to say.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    1 meter is on top of about that much subsidence and storm surge increase. Most of Langley Air Force Base and much of adjacent NASA Langley will be below high tide level, not counting storm surge. My neighbor's house (who are trying to sell) will be under nearly a meter of water. This is not "non-issue." We're talking only about 80 years from now. Within living memory. And we're already seeing impact. https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/6/-8502032.768614948/4451538.491525828/15/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/6/-8502032.768614948/... EDIT: I understood your point was about how the REAL threat is the existential threat of nonlinear feedback loops, HOWEVER, I thought your post under-played the real consequences on people alive today of even the most likely outcome. We're going to have to rebuild much of cities that have been around for 100s of years. There's an enormous amount of capital involved here. Imagine Katrina-like scenarios but for dozens of cities in the US and at regular intervals. A vast system of dikes will be needed, probably at the cost of a trillion dollars, all along the US sea coasts. In addition to on the order of trillions in real estate that will have to be abandoned (in places like Miami, Norfolk, New York City, San Fran and surrounding cities, much of the Mississippi river delta in Louisiana including New Orleans, and even Washington DC) or maybe rebuilt on stilts or vastly upgraded dike systems. This is stuff in living memory of today, and it's the result of a stay-the-course growth in fossil fuel usage.
abootstrapper 7y ago
Or “how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.”

by eloff 7y ago

vonmoltke 7y ago

> This happened when ~5C degree warming from millions of years of the Siberian traps eruptions caused methane hydrates to be released into the atmosphere, triggering another ~5C warming and the greatest mass extinction on Earth, the End-Permian Extinction, also known as "the Great Dying" where 96% of marine species went extinct, and 70% of terrestrial species. That's a theory for what happened, but as I understand it the cause of this extinction has not been conclusively proved.

eloff 7y ago
Yes, it's the leading theory. That doesn't mean is true, just the most likely explanation for the data we have now. Hardly anything is "conclusively proved", although theories we can design experiments for are much more robust than theories about historical or geological events where we don't have that luxury.

perfunctory 7y ago

> relax, you'll be dead by then This is part of the reason so little is being done to combat climate change now. If we don't act now though, the future generations will definitely drown. It will be too late for them to do anything. > That's one of the few countries likely to benefit from climate change. This is one of the most dangerous delusions. In our globalised interconnected world nobody will benefit. Just think about the last financial crisis. Mortgage crisis in the US caused chaos in the whole world.

eloff 7y ago
Nobody is going to drown. People will do some combination of building walls, raising land, and moving. It will play out over a period of a thousands years or more. There will be a non-zero cost associated with diverting resources for these things, but that's not the end of the world. I'm not saying it's an excuse for not acting though. We have a responsibility to take care of our own mess, rather than just dump it on our children. I still think the comparative lack of low-lying coastal land, plus ample freshwater, increased growing season, and increased arable land will be net benefit for Canada and Russia. Plus if things are as bad as you say, they'll benefit from increased demand for immigration as well (even if you don't take on more people, you can select more desirable immigrants.) This is not a crash situation like 2008, this is more like a glacier that's flowing towards you. You have plenty of time to plan your response, like moving out of the way, but you can't stop it. Trouble in other countries will have unpredictable, but not necessarily all bad effects.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Is it now? The predictions are, as far as I understand, that a lot of coastal areas will become submerged this century, meanwhile the rising temperatures will (and already are) mess up with the food supply. As that accelerates, the world will see a migration wave like never before in history, and frankly, it sounds like straight to World War 3 from here to me. The planet, frankly, doesn't matter. It'll be fine. The thing that matters is our technological civilization. Whether it's a gun or a glacier, our civilization is fragile, and when it fails, it's essentially game over for humanity - mass deaths followed by the remaining survivors stuck in medieval conditions for many thousands, or tens of thousands of years.

asdfman123 7y ago

The real thing I fear involving climate change is civilization collapse, or at least famine and warfare. I fear a future where there are a lot of very, very angry, hungry people, lead by governments with nuclear weapons. This is just based on my casual reading of events and history. If anyone knows of any good articles talking about this sort of thing, link me.

GVIrish 7y ago
People should be very worried about this. Some parts of the world are already unstable, imagine what happens when food supplies dramatically contract or areas are hit with multiple weather disasters. There is a lot of strain and turmoil over migrations as is (see Syria), imagine what that looks like when hundreds of millions of people are displaced. What happens when millions of hungry and displaced people try to move across borders to countries that are their outright enemies? Or if an already oppressed ethnic group is hit with a water crisis? One doesn't need to look far into history to see that it could lead to mass murder

Robotbeat 7y ago

Sea level rise under the "business as usual" RCP 8.5 scenario is 0.5 to 1 meter by 2100. Combined with increased storm intensity and existing subsidence rates, and this a very large increase that will swamp many lower lying cities, including much of the area where I work today. "You'll long be dead" applies to the elderly politicians currently driving policies and laughing/mocking young climate activists. But the young climate activists like Greta or younger probably WILL be alive by 2100. Most of my children will still be alive by then, and when (if) I have grandchildren, they definitely will. I think it's absurd to not give a crap about the fate of my children. "Relax, you'll be long dead" is a statement contingent on the generation. The Boomers and older, who hold the vast majority of the world's wealth, have the least at stake while the young people currently striking have the most at stake. Climate denialism is basically an economic war on the young.

eloff 7y ago
You're the only one talking about not giving a crap. Don't strawman my argument. 50-100cm of sea-level rise over a period of 100 years is a non-issue really. Most places won't be affected and those that will be have time to employ one of the three strategies mentioned. Everyone alive will be dead before it starts to really bite - that does not equate to permission "not to give a crap" to be perfectly clear. It's also not climate denialism to talk about the facts, which I shouldn't need to say.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  1 meter is on top of about that much subsidence and storm surge increase. Most of Langley Air Force Base and much of adjacent NASA Langley will be below high tide level, not counting storm surge. My neighbor's house (who are trying to sell) will be under nearly a meter of water. This is not "non-issue." We're talking only about 80 years from now. Within living memory. And we're already seeing impact. https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/6/-8502032.768614948/4451538.491525828/15/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/6/-8502032.768614948/... EDIT: I understood your point was about how the REAL threat is the existential threat of nonlinear feedback loops, HOWEVER, I thought your post under-played the real consequences on people alive today of even the most likely outcome. We're going to have to rebuild much of cities that have been around for 100s of years. There's an enormous amount of capital involved here. Imagine Katrina-like scenarios but for dozens of cities in the US and at regular intervals. A vast system of dikes will be needed, probably at the cost of a trillion dollars, all along the US sea coasts. In addition to on the order of trillions in real estate that will have to be abandoned (in places like Miami, Norfolk, New York City, San Fran and surrounding cities, much of the Mississippi river delta in Louisiana including New Orleans, and even Washington DC) or maybe rebuilt on stilts or vastly upgraded dike systems. This is stuff in living memory of today, and it's the result of a stay-the-course growth in fossil fuel usage.

abootstrapper 7y ago

Or “how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.”