8 ms·

wait until you see what happens to the standard of living if we don't! All IPCC targets assume getting to 0 emissions relatively soon. If we can't take economi

wait until you see what happens to the standard of living if we don't! All IPCC targets assume getting to 0 emissions relatively soon. If we can't take economic hits to get there, then we'll take a fantastically more wild economic hit once we miss those goals. I suggest you spend some time researching a bit what happens with each degree C we get to. It's far worse then just rising sea-levels.

missedthecue 6y ago
The cost of diking every susceptible mile of seashore has been calculated before and it is a rounding error in terms of global GNP. The Netherlands was doing it in the 12th century with 12th century technology, and I don't think there is any nation today with average living standards below 12th century europe.
- sbierwagen 6y ago
  https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaaw1838 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaaw1838 >Our survey of the climate record from station data reveals many global TW exceedances of 31° and 33°C and two stations that have already reported multiple daily maximum TW values above 35°C. These conditions, nearing or beyond prolonged human physiological tolerance, have mostly occurred only for 1- to 2-hours’ duration (fig. S2). [...] >Steep and statistically significant upward trends in extreme TW frequency (exceedances of 27°, 29°, 31°, and 33°C) and magnitude are present across weather stations globally (Fig. 2). Each frequency trend represents more than a doubling of occurrences of the corresponding threshold between 1979 and 2017. [...] >The southern Persian Gulf shoreline and northern South Asia are home to millions of people, situating them on the front lines of exposure to TW extremes at the edge of and outside the range of natural variability in which our physiology evolved (36). I feel like air conditioning millions (and soon, billions) of people will be more than a rounding error of GNP. Indeed, economic activity may be... slightly curtailed... in countries where going outside results in death.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    there is a lot more land in the northern hemisphere than at the equator. People will move over the next hundred years. Populations will look much more different in 2100 just like they looked very different in 1900. Countries like Canada will become more than 90 km in vertical length. Countries like Russia and Norway and Finland and the United States will also become more habitable. There is a lot more land that will become accessible than land that will become too harsh.
    - baron_harkonnen 6y ago
      People are moving because of climate right now and it's causing massive civil unrest. This is nothing compared to the scale that will happen when a sizeable portion of the earth is not inhabitable. If we get to 6C, which is a very real possibility given the fairly large number of positive feedback and history of rapid climate events on the planet, human extinction is a potential outcome. But I suspect that's really no evidence or argument that would convince you that things won't be pretty much fine, which is why I'm personally more convinced then ever that we will likely see that 6C.
      - missedthecue 6y ago
        I'm not saying that things are pretty much fine. Climate change is a real problem. It is a global problem. I can't think of a reason to believe that prevention is a strategy that will work. Adaption on the other hand is likely to be the better option.
    - sbierwagen 6y ago
      What you say is entirely correct: in 2120 there will, proportionally, be more people living in northern latitudes. It nimbly skips over what will happen to get them there. India is the second most populated country in the world. Pakistan is fifth. Between them, they need to move hundreds of millions of people before the end of the century. Directly north of them are China and Russia. China and Russia both have very restrictive immigration policies, and are one-party authoritarian states. All four of these countries have nuclear weapons.
- int_19h 6y ago
  It's not the sea-level rise itself that would be the most damaging economically long-term. It's the changing weather, and how it affects agriculture, water availability etc - and in some regions, the ability of humans to function there in general, for some parts of the year.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    There is an incredible portion of the planet that is not habitable for most of the year. The majority of land on Earth is north of the equator, and very much of it is just flat out impossible to thrive in year round. Global warming will probably be a net benefit in this respect. As far as agriculture is concerned, the IPCC says that rising temperatures will be good for farming (within a certain limit, 2-3c I believe). Carbon after all is an input to photosynthesis.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      There's more to farming than temperature. A lot of people think that, as things get warmer, we'll simply move agriculture further to the north. But it's also a matter of soil fertility - many of the most fertile areas that we have today will be adversely affected, and the new ones that'll open up due to warming (e.g. in Canada and in Siberia) have very poor soils.

missedthecue 6y ago

The cost of diking every susceptible mile of seashore has been calculated before and it is a rounding error in terms of global GNP. The Netherlands was doing it in the 12th century with 12th century technology, and I don't think there is any nation today with average living standards below 12th century europe.

sbierwagen 6y ago
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaaw1838 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaaw1838 >Our survey of the climate record from station data reveals many global TW exceedances of 31° and 33°C and two stations that have already reported multiple daily maximum TW values above 35°C. These conditions, nearing or beyond prolonged human physiological tolerance, have mostly occurred only for 1- to 2-hours’ duration (fig. S2). [...] >Steep and statistically significant upward trends in extreme TW frequency (exceedances of 27°, 29°, 31°, and 33°C) and magnitude are present across weather stations globally (Fig. 2). Each frequency trend represents more than a doubling of occurrences of the corresponding threshold between 1979 and 2017. [...] >The southern Persian Gulf shoreline and northern South Asia are home to millions of people, situating them on the front lines of exposure to TW extremes at the edge of and outside the range of natural variability in which our physiology evolved (36). I feel like air conditioning millions (and soon, billions) of people will be more than a rounding error of GNP. Indeed, economic activity may be... slightly curtailed... in countries where going outside results in death.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  there is a lot more land in the northern hemisphere than at the equator. People will move over the next hundred years. Populations will look much more different in 2100 just like they looked very different in 1900. Countries like Canada will become more than 90 km in vertical length. Countries like Russia and Norway and Finland and the United States will also become more habitable. There is a lot more land that will become accessible than land that will become too harsh.
  - baron_harkonnen 6y ago
    People are moving because of climate right now and it's causing massive civil unrest. This is nothing compared to the scale that will happen when a sizeable portion of the earth is not inhabitable. If we get to 6C, which is a very real possibility given the fairly large number of positive feedback and history of rapid climate events on the planet, human extinction is a potential outcome. But I suspect that's really no evidence or argument that would convince you that things won't be pretty much fine, which is why I'm personally more convinced then ever that we will likely see that 6C.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      I'm not saying that things are pretty much fine. Climate change is a real problem. It is a global problem. I can't think of a reason to believe that prevention is a strategy that will work. Adaption on the other hand is likely to be the better option.
  - sbierwagen 6y ago
    What you say is entirely correct: in 2120 there will, proportionally, be more people living in northern latitudes. It nimbly skips over what will happen to get them there. India is the second most populated country in the world. Pakistan is fifth. Between them, they need to move hundreds of millions of people before the end of the century. Directly north of them are China and Russia. China and Russia both have very restrictive immigration policies, and are one-party authoritarian states. All four of these countries have nuclear weapons.
int_19h 6y ago
It's not the sea-level rise itself that would be the most damaging economically long-term. It's the changing weather, and how it affects agriculture, water availability etc - and in some regions, the ability of humans to function there in general, for some parts of the year.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  There is an incredible portion of the planet that is not habitable for most of the year. The majority of land on Earth is north of the equator, and very much of it is just flat out impossible to thrive in year round. Global warming will probably be a net benefit in this respect. As far as agriculture is concerned, the IPCC says that rising temperatures will be good for farming (within a certain limit, 2-3c I believe). Carbon after all is an input to photosynthesis.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    There's more to farming than temperature. A lot of people think that, as things get warmer, we'll simply move agriculture further to the north. But it's also a matter of soil fertility - many of the most fertile areas that we have today will be adversely affected, and the new ones that'll open up due to warming (e.g. in Canada and in Siberia) have very poor soils.