5 ms·

> Rising temperatures will lead to huge portions of the planet that are currently densely populated that will no longer support humans. This does not seem like

by kanox 6y ago

> Rising temperatures will lead to huge portions of the planet that are currently densely populated that will no longer support humans. This does not seem likely, the bar for a region being "unable to support humans" is very high. People already live in cities that need to support themselves with food from elsewhere, and worldwide calorie production per capita is increasing.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
Land that is underwater would count as unable to support humans, I think.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  A few areas of the world that are unusually low-lying and situated over permeable rock like limestone will be flooded. For the rest of the world, dikes are a well-understood technology, and quite cheap compared to sacrificing large land areas or moving cities. Even worst-case shortest-timeline estimates of sea level rise are not an existential crisis.
  - peterashford 6y ago
    There are pacific islands losing land to water rise NOW. This is an existential crisis for them. What do you say to them? Sorry, we couldn't be bothered to fix the problem? (That we created and you are suffering the consequences of)
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      They should move. Perhaps it would soften the blow if they were also told platitudes about fault and blame, but realistically (a) the problem is not going to be solved in time, and (b) the plight of a small number of people is not going to move the needle in regards to the willingness of the world to address the issue. People who still think that the damage can be averted entirely are just as deluded as people who think that sea level rise is an existential threat to human civilization.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
This statement is bizarre. Have you seen what a sea-level rise map of Bangladesh looks like? Unless Bangladeshis start evolving gills I'm pretty sure the area where many of them currently live will no longer support humans.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  The Dutch have been living below sea level for centuries. It’s not the end of the world and ultimately dikes cost a lot less than losing significant land area and moving massive population centers. A few places like Florida that are awkwardly situated above porous rock like limestone and have little elevation above sea level even well inland are kinda screwed, but for the most part sea level rise is an expensive but entirely solvable problem.
  - polytely 6y ago
    It took a huge flood to mobilize the political will to spend a fuckton of money on flood prevention.* I feel like the problem with climate change is that by the time the effects get so bad that everyone will be on board to actually put a significant amount of resources into prevention and mitigation, it will be too late to do anything, because there is a time lag between ceasing emissions and the climate stabilizing. Additionally, all the greenhouse gasses you have already emitted are still in the atmosphere so just stopping emissions will only stop the heating up (if we are lucky) and not automatically result in the climate returning to "normal". *: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      Building flood barriers is a lot cheaper and a lot easier to throw money at than reducing emissions. Barriers can also be constructed on a local or regional level, whereas emission reduction requires achieving an intractable global consensus. It doesn’t follow that the same dysfunctions that have prevented emission reduction will prevent the construction of flood barriers.
pixl97 6y ago
It seems like you understand very little about systems collapse. A huge portion of our farming is currently unsustainable. Yes, we are producing more right now, but this production is on a clock. Even without any change in climate we are screwed. Look at how many places in the world are currently undergoing water system collapse. California, a huge crop producing state, has areas that have sunk nearly 30 meters because of pumping too much water. Those same areas are highly dependant on bringing in water from long distances away. Now add unstable weather patterns the the propensity for longer droughts and tell me what you think will happen? We are not dealing with a climate change problem. We are dealing with A long term water supply problem A soil salinization over vast areas problem A soil decarbonization problem over vast areas Increasing temperatures that are pushing our current high yield crops to their limit problem A globalized transportation system that will quickly spread crop diseases problem Humanity is playing russian roulette with these issues. We will get a perfect storm one of these years, for example across the midwest US being hit by a drought and crop rust and we could see a near complete failure of our corn harvest. We are talking about the potential loss of 750 million tons of calories that will rock the world to its foundations.
- doliveira 6y ago
  We really should learn more about the Bronze Age collapse... Interconnected empires with hundreds and thousands of years simply vanishing in one generation due to a combination of wars, famine and possibly climate change in the Mediterranean. Supply lines got dismantled, a lot of technology was lost, Mycenaeans even forgot how to write! Sounds like a cautionary tale to our current situation.
newt_slowly 6y ago
When the combination of heat and humidity gets high enough (look up wet bulb temperature) then it means death for even fit young people, even when sitting in the shade with access to drinking water. We are thermodynamically incapable of surviving too high of web bulb temperatures. Huge swaths of the globe will experience fatal web bulb temperatures multiple times a year by the end of the century. Very clearly this makes a region "unable to support humans".
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  A large fraction of the human population have been living in parts of the world where the external environment is lethal for months of the year for thousands of years. It’ll certainly be an interesting development when air conditioning becomes a matter of life and death the way heating in winter already is in much of the world, but air conditioning is also much less energy intensive than heating.
  - newt_slowly 6y ago
    I don't think it is reasonable to compare other hostile environments to one where humans are literally incapable of being outside for extended periods of time. Even in harsh cold climates, it is possible to wear suitable clothing, or build a fire. That is simple, resilient, low tech and low carbon. Requiring a structure with AC and power is a much larger challenge. Furthermore, a lot of the areas that will suffer from fatal wet bulb temperatures do not have the wealth to provide AC to everyone. This will drive mass migrations of people on a scale we have never seen before, destabilizing neighbouring countries (or more likely, leading to mass murder). Finally, this is another positive feedback loop: more AC required -> more energy required -> more severe global warning.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      Cooling and dehumidifying a residence to a non-lethal temperature and humidity doesn’t take all that much energy or particularly expensive or sophisticated technology. And emissions from the residential electricity generation required isn’t a particularly pressing concern. Intermittent power capacity like solar and wind is most available at the same time it’s most needed for driving residential air conditioning, and large countries like India, China, Brazil, Nigeria etc that are going to be facing this issue don’t have the same paranoia about nuclear power that’s so common in the West.

by kanox 6y ago

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

Land that is underwater would count as unable to support humans, I think.

dodobirdlord 6y ago
A few areas of the world that are unusually low-lying and situated over permeable rock like limestone will be flooded. For the rest of the world, dikes are a well-understood technology, and quite cheap compared to sacrificing large land areas or moving cities. Even worst-case shortest-timeline estimates of sea level rise are not an existential crisis.
- peterashford 6y ago
  There are pacific islands losing land to water rise NOW. This is an existential crisis for them. What do you say to them? Sorry, we couldn't be bothered to fix the problem? (That we created and you are suffering the consequences of)
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    They should move. Perhaps it would soften the blow if they were also told platitudes about fault and blame, but realistically (a) the problem is not going to be solved in time, and (b) the plight of a small number of people is not going to move the needle in regards to the willingness of the world to address the issue. People who still think that the damage can be averted entirely are just as deluded as people who think that sea level rise is an existential threat to human civilization.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

This statement is bizarre. Have you seen what a sea-level rise map of Bangladesh looks like? Unless Bangladeshis start evolving gills I'm pretty sure the area where many of them currently live will no longer support humans.

dodobirdlord 6y ago
The Dutch have been living below sea level for centuries. It’s not the end of the world and ultimately dikes cost a lot less than losing significant land area and moving massive population centers. A few places like Florida that are awkwardly situated above porous rock like limestone and have little elevation above sea level even well inland are kinda screwed, but for the most part sea level rise is an expensive but entirely solvable problem.
- polytely 6y ago
  It took a huge flood to mobilize the political will to spend a fuckton of money on flood prevention.* I feel like the problem with climate change is that by the time the effects get so bad that everyone will be on board to actually put a significant amount of resources into prevention and mitigation, it will be too late to do anything, because there is a time lag between ceasing emissions and the climate stabilizing. Additionally, all the greenhouse gasses you have already emitted are still in the atmosphere so just stopping emissions will only stop the heating up (if we are lucky) and not automatically result in the climate returning to "normal". *: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Building flood barriers is a lot cheaper and a lot easier to throw money at than reducing emissions. Barriers can also be constructed on a local or regional level, whereas emission reduction requires achieving an intractable global consensus. It doesn’t follow that the same dysfunctions that have prevented emission reduction will prevent the construction of flood barriers.

pixl97 6y ago

It seems like you understand very little about systems collapse. A huge portion of our farming is currently unsustainable. Yes, we are producing more right now, but this production is on a clock. Even without any change in climate we are screwed. Look at how many places in the world are currently undergoing water system collapse. California, a huge crop producing state, has areas that have sunk nearly 30 meters because of pumping too much water. Those same areas are highly dependant on bringing in water from long distances away. Now add unstable weather patterns the the propensity for longer droughts and tell me what you think will happen? We are not dealing with a climate change problem. We are dealing with A long term water supply problem A soil salinization over vast areas problem A soil decarbonization problem over vast areas Increasing temperatures that are pushing our current high yield crops to their limit problem A globalized transportation system that will quickly spread crop diseases problem Humanity is playing russian roulette with these issues. We will get a perfect storm one of these years, for example across the midwest US being hit by a drought and crop rust and we could see a near complete failure of our corn harvest. We are talking about the potential loss of 750 million tons of calories that will rock the world to its foundations.

doliveira 6y ago
We really should learn more about the Bronze Age collapse... Interconnected empires with hundreds and thousands of years simply vanishing in one generation due to a combination of wars, famine and possibly climate change in the Mediterranean. Supply lines got dismantled, a lot of technology was lost, Mycenaeans even forgot how to write! Sounds like a cautionary tale to our current situation.

newt_slowly 6y ago

When the combination of heat and humidity gets high enough (look up wet bulb temperature) then it means death for even fit young people, even when sitting in the shade with access to drinking water. We are thermodynamically incapable of surviving too high of web bulb temperatures. Huge swaths of the globe will experience fatal web bulb temperatures multiple times a year by the end of the century. Very clearly this makes a region "unable to support humans".

dodobirdlord 6y ago
A large fraction of the human population have been living in parts of the world where the external environment is lethal for months of the year for thousands of years. It’ll certainly be an interesting development when air conditioning becomes a matter of life and death the way heating in winter already is in much of the world, but air conditioning is also much less energy intensive than heating.
- newt_slowly 6y ago
  I don't think it is reasonable to compare other hostile environments to one where humans are literally incapable of being outside for extended periods of time. Even in harsh cold climates, it is possible to wear suitable clothing, or build a fire. That is simple, resilient, low tech and low carbon. Requiring a structure with AC and power is a much larger challenge. Furthermore, a lot of the areas that will suffer from fatal wet bulb temperatures do not have the wealth to provide AC to everyone. This will drive mass migrations of people on a scale we have never seen before, destabilizing neighbouring countries (or more likely, leading to mass murder). Finally, this is another positive feedback loop: more AC required -> more energy required -> more severe global warning.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Cooling and dehumidifying a residence to a non-lethal temperature and humidity doesn’t take all that much energy or particularly expensive or sophisticated technology. And emissions from the residential electricity generation required isn’t a particularly pressing concern. Intermittent power capacity like solar and wind is most available at the same time it’s most needed for driving residential air conditioning, and large countries like India, China, Brazil, Nigeria etc that are going to be facing this issue don’t have the same paranoia about nuclear power that’s so common in the West.