4 ms·

Out of curiosity, is there any consensus on what parts of the world might be underwater or a desert once this plays out? I'm not a climate scientist, but I'm c

by larntz 5y ago

Out of curiosity, is there any consensus on what parts of the world might be underwater or a desert once this plays out? I'm not a climate scientist, but I'm curious after these comments if there is some way to know what changes will happen where. I know there are some obvious assumptions like coastal areas are likely to be underwater, but how can we know if e.g., South Dakota will be a frozen tundra or desert? Apologies if that is a dumb questions. I am not knowledgeable on this subject.

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
Although climate modeling has shown overall warming of the planet through increased greenhouse gasses, calculating future local climate conditions is still an area of active research. Before moving to another area, it should be considered that the support system of employment, friends and family that we take for granted and that we depend on are things we would be leaving. So weigh options carefully.
joelbluminator 5y ago
10 years is a pretty crazy timeline, I don't think many places will be submerged in 10 years.
- fogihujy 5y ago
  They might be frozen solid though...
  - joelbluminator 5y ago
    Where do you anticipate that happening? And in 10 years no less. Is the study suggesting such crazy timelines?
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  Indeed. The "10 years" has always been "we have ten years to stave off a collapse that will then play out over the next hundred or so years." Shellenberger's new book Apocalypse Never has been a comforting read in this regard. Despite the provocative title, he's a serious environmentalist and does not argue for "no action" but rather that many of the actions being pursued by NGOs and groups like XR are very short term oriented and not thinking about the big picture of second order effects. In particular, he argues that the key to saving the environment lies in doing things like deploying natural gas and nuclear power into Africa and South America to develop those economies as quickly as possible— that this is the route to stemming coal usage and hitting the world population cap sooner rather than later, and those are the two most important factors when it comes to ultimately controlling emissions.
  - keithwhor 5y ago
    This is a pretty interesting take. Sort of an, "accelerate every country through their inevitable industrialization and all that comes with it so we can help them get past it faster." I wonder how much of the US defense budget could be deployed to providing nuclear power to newly industrializing countries and what the long-term ROI would be re; staving off future climate refugee issues.
Throwaway197401 5y ago
No there isn't any demonstrated consequences of our impact on climate change which leads us to any of those conclusions. The climate is always changing and always creating challenges to humans and always will but the idea that this catastrophist viewpoint is consensus or even more importantly scientific has no base.

by larntz 5y ago

vegetablepotpie 5y ago

Although climate modeling has shown overall warming of the planet through increased greenhouse gasses, calculating future local climate conditions is still an area of active research. Before moving to another area, it should be considered that the support system of employment, friends and family that we take for granted and that we depend on are things we would be leaving. So weigh options carefully.

joelbluminator 5y ago

10 years is a pretty crazy timeline, I don't think many places will be submerged in 10 years.

fogihujy 5y ago
They might be frozen solid though...
- joelbluminator 5y ago
  Where do you anticipate that happening? And in 10 years no less. Is the study suggesting such crazy timelines?
mikepurvis 5y ago
Indeed. The "10 years" has always been "we have ten years to stave off a collapse that will then play out over the next hundred or so years." Shellenberger's new book Apocalypse Never has been a comforting read in this regard. Despite the provocative title, he's a serious environmentalist and does not argue for "no action" but rather that many of the actions being pursued by NGOs and groups like XR are very short term oriented and not thinking about the big picture of second order effects. In particular, he argues that the key to saving the environment lies in doing things like deploying natural gas and nuclear power into Africa and South America to develop those economies as quickly as possible— that this is the route to stemming coal usage and hitting the world population cap sooner rather than later, and those are the two most important factors when it comes to ultimately controlling emissions.
- keithwhor 5y ago
  This is a pretty interesting take. Sort of an, "accelerate every country through their inevitable industrialization and all that comes with it so we can help them get past it faster." I wonder how much of the US defense budget could be deployed to providing nuclear power to newly industrializing countries and what the long-term ROI would be re; staving off future climate refugee issues.

Throwaway197401 5y ago

No there isn't any demonstrated consequences of our impact on climate change which leads us to any of those conclusions. The climate is always changing and always creating challenges to humans and always will but the idea that this catastrophist viewpoint is consensus or even more importantly scientific has no base.