4 ms·

Global warming might well gradually force us back again to a semi-nocturnal/ underground existence too. Bring on the night...

prichino 4y ago
Global warming is so 2010... It's climate change
- wizofaus 4y ago
  IPCC still use both terms, at least, they were last year: https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/#single-content-1 https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/#single-c... I wrote "global heating" first but it still feels weird to me.
eru 4y ago
Extremely unlikely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_change#Aggregate_impacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_ch... says that the best available studies foresee global GDP dropping between 0% - 20% from climate change (compared to no climate change). Given that this happens against a backdrop of normal, regular economic growth, people in the future will still be richer than people today. And approximately everyone today who can afford aircon (and needs it) gets aircon, rather than turning nocturnal.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  Given that this happens against a backdrop of most of human habitation being below sea level, I think GDP projections are probably an awful estimation of human impact.
  - bratbag 4y ago
    Reading that link, those estimates are based upon us keeping temperature increases below 3 deg. In which case most human habitation will be fine. It also means that analysis is not a good one to quote without qualifiers about 'controlled climate change'
- bratbag 4y ago
  That analysis specifically states it only applies if we keep changes within 3 deg.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    And only goes to the end of the century. Climate change and its after-effects will be with us for many many centuries barring extraordinary levels of technological intervention (which is not out of the question, but even that is unlikely to bring back extinct species etc.).
- wizofaus 4y ago
  What's that got to do with the possible need to adjust to changing climate by living underground or semi-nocturnally? I made no prediction of what level of technology we'd have. We may will simply find it provides a better mode of existence.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Are those the models that assume that all indoor economic activity is unaffected by climate change?
colechristensen 4y ago
This is ridiculous. People will just move towards the poles. Earth has been much warmer in the past and it was rainforests from pole to pole.
- aitchnyu 4y ago
  Antartica has average elevation of 2500 meters. AFAICT Antartica can offer very little habitable land after the ice melts.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    Towards, not to. Lots of land in Canada and Siberia is going to become a lot more habitable. "average elevation" is a bit of a strange metric for a continent. Several large American cities are above 1600m and just looking at a map of the land below the ice of Antartica, there is plenty of low-lying land. And we need not exaggerate the actual expected warming. The beyond-worst-case doomers don't need that much attention. People are going to move away from coasts because the sea will make a new coastline. Agricultural zones will move north and around because of changes to weather patterns. Pretty cold places will become less cold and new cities will pop up further north. Canada will do pretty well and grow a lot.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      > Canada will do pretty well and grow a lot. Perhaps- but it's also warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, which makes adaptation even more challenging.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  I expect that will happen too, I don't see it's any more ridiculous than suggesting underground and more nocturnal living arrangements will become common too. Sea level rises will massively reduce the amount of arable land we'll have to occupy, and there'll be another 2 billion of us in 30-40 years, so we'll need every available option. Both are a huge disruption from our current mode of existence. If you have kids under 20 now they'll very likely witness it in their lifetimes.

prichino 4y ago

Global warming is so 2010... It's climate change

wizofaus 4y ago
IPCC still use both terms, at least, they were last year: https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/#single-content-1 https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/#single-c... I wrote "global heating" first but it still feels weird to me.

eru 4y ago

Extremely unlikely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_change#Aggregate_impacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_ch... says that the best available studies foresee global GDP dropping between 0% - 20% from climate change (compared to no climate change). Given that this happens against a backdrop of normal, regular economic growth, people in the future will still be richer than people today. And approximately everyone today who can afford aircon (and needs it) gets aircon, rather than turning nocturnal.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
Given that this happens against a backdrop of most of human habitation being below sea level, I think GDP projections are probably an awful estimation of human impact.
- bratbag 4y ago
  Reading that link, those estimates are based upon us keeping temperature increases below 3 deg. In which case most human habitation will be fine. It also means that analysis is not a good one to quote without qualifiers about 'controlled climate change'
bratbag 4y ago
That analysis specifically states it only applies if we keep changes within 3 deg.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  And only goes to the end of the century. Climate change and its after-effects will be with us for many many centuries barring extraordinary levels of technological intervention (which is not out of the question, but even that is unlikely to bring back extinct species etc.).
wizofaus 4y ago
What's that got to do with the possible need to adjust to changing climate by living underground or semi-nocturnally? I made no prediction of what level of technology we'd have. We may will simply find it provides a better mode of existence.
adrianN 4y ago
Are those the models that assume that all indoor economic activity is unaffected by climate change?

colechristensen 4y ago

This is ridiculous. People will just move towards the poles. Earth has been much warmer in the past and it was rainforests from pole to pole.

aitchnyu 4y ago
Antartica has average elevation of 2500 meters. AFAICT Antartica can offer very little habitable land after the ice melts.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Towards, not to. Lots of land in Canada and Siberia is going to become a lot more habitable. "average elevation" is a bit of a strange metric for a continent. Several large American cities are above 1600m and just looking at a map of the land below the ice of Antartica, there is plenty of low-lying land. And we need not exaggerate the actual expected warming. The beyond-worst-case doomers don't need that much attention. People are going to move away from coasts because the sea will make a new coastline. Agricultural zones will move north and around because of changes to weather patterns. Pretty cold places will become less cold and new cities will pop up further north. Canada will do pretty well and grow a lot.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    > Canada will do pretty well and grow a lot. Perhaps- but it's also warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, which makes adaptation even more challenging.
wizofaus 4y ago
I expect that will happen too, I don't see it's any more ridiculous than suggesting underground and more nocturnal living arrangements will become common too. Sea level rises will massively reduce the amount of arable land we'll have to occupy, and there'll be another 2 billion of us in 30-40 years, so we'll need every available option. Both are a huge disruption from our current mode of existence. If you have kids under 20 now they'll very likely witness it in their lifetimes.