9 ms·
Future of the human climate niche
- hnburnsy 6y agoInteresting that it appears by looking at the visuals, a great deal more of land mass will become more suitable over the next 50 years, mostly in Canada and Russia. Investment opportunity?
- btrettel 6y agoI recall watching a documentary in the 00s where someone claimed to be buying land in Russia specifically because of this.
- hnburnsy 6y agoCould be the plot for the next James Bond movie, I think they have had movies where the villian is trying to corner the market in oil, gold, water, media, space, etc. Maybe cornering the market in frozen tundra could be the next villainous objective.
- ikeyany 6y agoI hope they had an heir.
- blaser-waffle 6y agoNot someone buying land, Russian Oligarchs who already own it. They're cool (har har) with global warming because it lets them use whole swaths of land and get easy access to resources -- otherwise most of Russia is just frozen tundra. Who cares if a bunch of Indian coastal cities get flooded if you have a breadbasket and tons of oil?
- deftnerd 6y agoWhat I haven't seen is an analysis of how long it'll take for the temperature to rise enough for the permafrost to be entirely thawed. The freeze/thaw cycle wrecks havoc on infrastructure and buildings. Bringing infrastructure to these newly suitable lands will be a massive engineering challenge. Great article here: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/people.html https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/people.html
- hackissimo123 6y agoDon't forget that no matter how hot the planet gets, the angle of Earth's rotation is not going to change. Canada might get warmer, but it will still receive completely different patterns of sunlight to the United States - and, of course, crops need specific light conditions to grow efficiently, not just specific temperatures. So just because Canada is getting warmer that doesn't mean we can necessarily move all our food production further north and keep going as normal. We're screwed.
- marcus_holmes 6y agoThis attitude basically says "everything was perfect 100 years ago, and any change to that is going to make things worse". Since the climate has always been changing, and 100 years ago we were coming out of the "little Ice Age"... why was that so perfect? There must be some changes from global warming that are beneficial, surely?
- loopz 6y agoThe speed of abrupt change may be lethal to 90%+ of life as we know it unless we slow it down without causing an Ice Age.
- taborj 6y ago[citation needed] Not trying to be snarky, but I see claims like this all the time (and not just about climate change), and nobody seems to provide a reputable source for said claims. Cite your source, just like you were in school.
- loopz 6y agohttps://ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment#5-By%20the%20numbers https://ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment#5-By%... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZfcDmtGa9I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZfcDmtGa9I
- _ph_ 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jb775 6y agoThis reminds me of the "Glaciers will melt within X years" studies, which ended up being wrong[1]. [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/07/glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/07/glacier-national-park...
- polotics 6y agoThis reminds me of the limits to growth mit model, which is ending up being right all the way back since 1970.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y agoThe 70s and 80s were great times for failed predictions. There’s unfortunately never any accountability with this type of thing, and instead we have a slow erosion of trust and general apathy. https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyp...
- saagarjha 6y agoTaking the most extreme predictions and then pulling them from headlines that misrepresent them, then cherry picking from that is a fairly poor way to organize an argument.
- b3nji 6y agoI agree, what models and predictions have come true that have been presented in the headlines? To start with accurate predictions as a base, then present the models and predictions that failed would put things into perspective.
- mistermann 6y agoTrust and apathy is still growing. Whether you like it or not, this is not unimportant. Nature is forcing it up on us. How shall we deal with it?
- taborj 6y ago
- ARandomerDude 6y agoWe'll see. I remember when Al Gore said we had 10 years in 2006.
- xpe 6y agoFirst, your phrasing is vague; please be more specific. If your comment is intended as a general dismissal of climate predictions, my replies would be: * What would you recommend instead? * Would you recommend that no one make model-based predictions at all? * Would you recommend that model-based predictions be dismissed entirely? All models are wrong, but some are useful. [1] In other words, models are all simplifications in different kinds of ways, but a critical, skeptical mind can find value in them. Science is largely based on models. Some may think current scientific theories are the complete truth, but history has shown this is not a reliable prediction. Still, you work with the best models you have, since the alternative is worse. Still, the only way forward we know is starting from where we are. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
- Joof 6y agoWas he referring to '10 years to enact things to prevent X'. Because we've passed a few thresholds that we probably can't take back at this point. Exponential growth on a long timescale is something people are bad at.
- wutbrodo 6y agoPeople are bad at exponential growth on a short timescale too. That's been one of the most interesting things about the early days of covid, when the divide seemed to be between quantitative and non-quantitative people, like VC firms discouraging handshakes and Vox mocking them for it.
- Kerrick 6y agoWow, Vox actually did that. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fears-contagion-how-infection-spreads https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fe... > reducing handshakes is recommended generally to prevent the spread of colds and flu, but not specifically for coronavirus. > Ulevitch also announced that he won’t be taking in-person meetings with anyone who’s recently traveled to China. It’s unclear if Ulevitch was kidding. > so far, the flu has impacted far more people. [...] Yet unlike the flu, the coronavirus is new and not well understood, which makes it especially scary to the public, including Silicon Valley’s elite. ...Wow.
- dnhz 6y agoThe crops we cultivate to feed ourselves and our animal slaves are grown outside. It’s a obvious statement, but it feels easy to forget when we spend most hours of the day indoors. Key stages in plant development are sensitive to temperatures. I used to think, it’s just a few degrees of warming. Well a few degrees hotter at a critical time of plant growth will affect yields of key staple crops like rice [1]. There’s a lot of suffering to come this century. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123876898000047 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012387...
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y agoThe definition of "suitability" here seems a bit suspect. For example, this image [1] implies that a vast swathe of western and northern Australia is currently "highly suitable", whereas the actual Pilbara [1] and Kimberley [2] are both very hot and dry, and (outside a narrow coastal fringe) generally thoroughly unsuitable for agriculture and settlement. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/04/28/1910114117/F4.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1 https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/04/28/191011411... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilbara https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilbara [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley_(Western_Australia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley_(Western_Australia)
- 29athrowaway 6y agoIn 50 years: - Groundwater will be gone. - Fish will be gone. - Arctic methane will be a problem. - Topsoil will die.
- xpe 6y agoCan you provide the sources for these claims? Please consider this a friendly suggestion to help improve the persuasiveness of your comment. The above claims are non-obvious, to say the least. Many appear to be exaggerations. Here on HN, it is my experience that people seek out useful discussion. It may be based on personal experiences and/or credible sources. If you have sources, share them.
- cranekam 6y agoDavid Wallace-Well's "The Uninhabitable Earth" covers some of these points, though they're exaggerated here (don't get me wrong: the unexaggerated versions in the book are still fucking terrifying). Guardian review of said book: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/27/the-uninhabitable-earth-review-david-wallace-wells https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/27/the-uninhabita... I like the last paragraph: "You could call [the book] alarmist, and you would not be wrong. (In the closing pages, Wallace-Wells himself accepts the charge as “fair enough, because I am alarmed”.) But to read The Uninhabitable Earth – or to consider in any serious way the scale of the crisis we face – is to understand the collapse of the distinction between alarmism and plain realism. To fail to be alarmed is to fail to think about the problem, and to fail to think about the problem is to relinquish all hope of its solution."
- 29athrowaway 6y agoSource: wait 50 years. The evidence is overwhelming, worldwide. Pick any source you want at this point.
- xpe 6y agoI invite you to reflect on what you wrote. Please offer a substantive response.
- blackrock 6y agoThen live underground?
- kranner 6y agoAs always, the problem is money.
- taberiand 6y agoSo: Morlock or Eloi?
- Mengkudulangsat 6y agoAlternatively; an enormous roof, Buckminster-fuller style.
- slicktux 6y agoReminds me of this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature
- westurner 6y agoHow many degrees Celsius hotter would that be for billions of people in 50 years? > The Paris Agreement's long-term temperature goal is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels; and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °C, recognizing that this would substantially reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. This should be done by reducing emissions as soon as possible, in order to "achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases" in the second half of the 21st century. It also aims to increase the ability of parties to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change, and make "finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development." > Under the Paris Agreement, each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on the contribution that it undertakes to mitigate global warming. [6] No mechanism forces [7] a country to set a specific emissions target by a specific date, [8] but each target should go beyond previously set targets. And then this is what was decided: > In June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the agreement. Under the agreement, the earliest effective date of withdrawal for the U.S. is November 2020, shortly before the end of President Trump's 2016 term. In practice, changes in United States policy that are contrary to the Paris Agreement have already been put in place.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement
- mistermann 6y agoDoes anyone meet their targets?
- westurner 6y agoThat's a good question,
- brainless 6y agoAnd we will ignore all these warnings, because why should we care? Extinction is a goal we have unconsciously targeted and we are going to achieve it.
- wintorez 6y agoYour last sentence hit me hard.
- brainless 6y agoFor sure. Look at how my comment is going to be bashed. Sadly we will not wait 50 years to judge I guess. People will not change their habits to fix global issues because global issues are not in human-time scale. So we do not see them coming.
- imtringued 6y agoWhat if there will be a response as soon as the old generation is gone? Of course we end up losing valuable time but I don't think people will do nothing in the end.
- loopz 6y agoThe old generation is wage-dependent, as will the next generations be as well.
- Bombthecat 6y agoI have the same weird feeling, like, if a culture or society grows too old. It acts more and more like a real old human. Like a real 90 year old...
- loopz 6y agoHumanity is acting more like a Toddler, with guns.
- 6y ago
- cranekam 6y agoThis is so depressing. Covid is obviously terrible (and I’m one of the fortunate ones for whom it has barely touched) and but at least it has temporarily distracted me from dwelling on the unfolding climate disaster. When is humanity going to get a grip on this? We know what the outcomes are and we know what the fixes are yet we’re doing ~nothing. I have a huge feeling of constant background dread for the future.
- makx 6y ago> we’re doing ~nothing A lot of people are doing something. Some do a lot by actively working on solutions, many do a little by preserving energy and reducing their personal consumption (especially meat and transportation/travel). If you feel dread you should do more.
- jillesvangurp 6y agoThis is a study on migration patterns resulting from an assumed combination of global warming as predicted by other scientists and nothing changing in between now and then. It's not actually predicting this extreme heat; merely citing studies that do and extrapolating from that. That's an interesting scenario to explore from a demographics point of view under the assumption that nothing changes. But it's not necessarily what is going to happen given the current technical progress on clean energy, farming practices, tackling desertification, etc. IMHO taking coal plants and most ICE vehicles out of the equation in the next decades is going to help reduce smog and co2 emissions. Concrete and cement are currently actually a bigger problem and there too there are alternative technologies emerging. It won't stop global warming but it will enable us to engineer our way out of (or at least around) some of its consequences. Clearly anything over 50-60 degrees C is not sustainable. The Saudi's are currently dealing with those kind of temperatures already on a regular basis. However, replanting forests in e.g. Africa or India or large scale ecosystem engineering in China seems to result in drastically different micro climate in those places where that happens. We've barely scratched the surface of what is possible there in a relatively short amount of time at relatively modest expense. Lower temperature, better water retention, higher farming yields, etc. Three decades is a long time for absolutely nothing to happen on that front. As for northern regions. What's bad for the world is not necessarily unpleasant there. I live in Berlin at 52 degrees latitude and used to live in Finland at 60 degrees latitude. Most of the world at similar southern latitudes are ocean. But longer nicer summers are not necessarily a punishment for people living there. And actually it's quite enjoyable. It's not all universally bad. And also it's not historically unprecedented for things to be a bit warmer up north given fossil records.
- ykevinator 6y agoThe best thing you can do to help is get your family to vote Democrat. They're the only viable party who acknowledges the problem.
- kasperni 6y agoThere are plenty of political parties around the world that acknowledges the problem.
- mistermann 6y agoMaybe. Out of curiosity, what's the second and third best things people could do?
- tzs 6y agoThe Republican party used to acknowledge the problem, just differing from Democrats in how to address it. There are still such Republicans, including some who were quite prominent a few years ago, e.g., [1]. If you live in a state where a Republican is quite a bit more likely than a Democrat to win the general election, it would probably be more effective to register as a Republican so you can participate in the primaries or caucuses that select the Republican candidate for the general election. There you can support candidates more like Republicans of a few years ago who would acknowledge and address the problem. [1] https://www.clcouncil.org/media/2017/03/The-Conservative-Case-for-Carbon-Dividends.pdf https://www.clcouncil.org/media/2017/03/The-Conservative-Cas...
- taborj 6y agoIf you're a single-issue voter, and your single-issue is climate change, then you're probably right. But if there are other things you care about even a little, then blindly voting for one party or the other is stupid. Whenever voting for anything you need to first weigh the items of greatest importance to you, in order from most to least important. Then find the candidates that put them in the same or similar order. That's whom you vote for, regardless of party, or what the news says about them, or what your family or friends vote.