5 ms·

> but humans will probably be fine. I wouldn't be so sure about that given the propensity for war when things get rough. Imagine what droughts, famine and los

> but humans will probably be fine. I wouldn't be so sure about that given the propensity for war when things get rough. Imagine what droughts, famine and loss of land due to flooding will bring.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago
Flooding will take a while because melting is slow. Eventually it’ll be extra-bad because of isostatic rebound of Antarctic continent, but that will take thousands of years. Which is my broader point, people are thinking imprecisely about climate change in favor of catastrophizing. I understand why, and emotional impact is maybe(?) needed for action- but it isn’t helpful for actually thinking about what to do.
- blackbrokkoli 5y ago
  The temperature in Canada is 50°C. People are dying. It's not catastrophizing to point at a catastrophe that is embedded in a long row of other recent catastrophes and saying "That's a catastrophe".
- adriancr 5y ago
  I really don't think I'm catastrophizing. Case in point, this is what I said: > Imagine what droughts, famine and loss of land due to flooding will bring. This is what is happening right now: - droughts -> see Canada and whole North America / Europe right now. Large chunks of Australia and California 'burnt' down last year. Crops will be devastated, people will die. - Famine -> the droughts above are going to cause massive issues with crop yields. Desertification is already happening in most of the world also... - Loss of land (due to flooding). We are already losing arable land to desertification. Localized flooding happens in a lot of places now due to erratic weather. (massive rainfalls where not expected -> dykes fail -> flood with loss of life and crops). Sure, Generalized flooding like what you say with Antartica won't be here for 20-30 years... but I hope I will still be alive by then as my children... Now. Take all those, and imagine them happening to China/US/Russia. Will they sit idly or invade/take neighboring states resources?

> but humans will probably be fine. I wouldn't be so sure about that given the propensity for war when things get rough. Imagine what droughts, famine and loss of land due to flooding will bring.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago

Flooding will take a while because melting is slow. Eventually it’ll be extra-bad because of isostatic rebound of Antarctic continent, but that will take thousands of years. Which is my broader point, people are thinking imprecisely about climate change in favor of catastrophizing. I understand why, and emotional impact is maybe(?) needed for action- but it isn’t helpful for actually thinking about what to do.

blackbrokkoli 5y ago
The temperature in Canada is 50°C. People are dying. It's not catastrophizing to point at a catastrophe that is embedded in a long row of other recent catastrophes and saying "That's a catastrophe".
adriancr 5y ago
I really don't think I'm catastrophizing. Case in point, this is what I said: > Imagine what droughts, famine and loss of land due to flooding will bring. This is what is happening right now: - droughts -> see Canada and whole North America / Europe right now. Large chunks of Australia and California 'burnt' down last year. Crops will be devastated, people will die. - Famine -> the droughts above are going to cause massive issues with crop yields. Desertification is already happening in most of the world also... - Loss of land (due to flooding). We are already losing arable land to desertification. Localized flooding happens in a lot of places now due to erratic weather. (massive rainfalls where not expected -> dykes fail -> flood with loss of life and crops). Sure, Generalized flooding like what you say with Antartica won't be here for 20-30 years... but I hope I will still be alive by then as my children... Now. Take all those, and imagine them happening to China/US/Russia. Will they sit idly or invade/take neighboring states resources?