This has been a doozy of a year. And it’s the best year so far blah blah. So how are you all coping? Does it hit anyone else like a bolt of lightning that probably I - we - won’t die of old age?
This has been a doozy of a year. And it’s the best year so far blah blah. So how are you all coping? Does it hit anyone else like a bolt of lightning that probably I - we - won’t die of old age?
The Earth has been much hotter than the worst-case scenario for anthropogenic climate change. (It used to be rainforests-at-the-North-pole hot.) Climate change isn’t going to kill you unless you’re both extremely poor (by global standards, not by first-world standards) and unlucky, although it may significantly reduce your quality of life as resources are redirected to mitigation. Where do these “mass death everywhere” ideas come from? They’re not a product of the scientific consensus.
As for me: it seems like the climate where I live is getting warmer. There has been much less snow recently than there was when I was a kid; it’s convenient but unsettling. The summers are getting hotter too, although the difference isn’t as dramatic. I’d like to move to somewhere further north, or maybe a place like coastal California which is without temperature extremes, but I would want to do that even if the climate wasn’t changing.
Where do these “mass death everywhere” ideas come from?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
The problem isn’t that it’s going to be warmer. The problem is that it’s getting warmer so quickly that populations won’t be able to adapt. Ecological collapse is absolutely on the table here. There is no real debate in the scientific community about this, just deceptive propaganda that’s disguised as ‘conflicting science’ but is simply a smoke screen to keep people ignoring the problem.
We’re going to lose a lot of diversity but hardy, fast-growing species will spread into niches formerly filled by specialists. Some models even predict that net ecological productivity will increase significantly (there does exist disagreement about this).
Look at who funded that study, and the actual contents.
According to this study - funded by the Chinese government, the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions on earth - we’ll see increased plant growth in the short term under controlled warming. Even ignoring the incredible conflict of interest, the fundamental assumption of the study is that we’ll be able to get warming under control and stick to the goals of the Paris agreement, maintaining only 2 degrees of warming by 2070. That’s absolutely absurd. We’ll be incredibly lucky to not hit 2 degrees of warming by 2040 at this rate. Besides that, they are essentially just looking at how plant growth responds to changes in temp and CO2. Of course plant productivity increases with higher temps and more available CO2, that’s not where the problems come in.
The problems occur when those hardy, fast growing species start really exploding. Cyanobacterial blooms that deoxygenate massive swaths of the ocean, killing millions of fish at a time. Population explosions of pests, contaminating food supplies and starting future pandemics. The ecosystem is complex and interconnected, things will adapt eventually, but the transition period will be catastrophic.
We are not a hardy, fast growing species. I have no doubt that people will survive, but it’s going to effect everyone, and a lot sooner than you think.
Humans have drastically altered ecology permanently anyways, during fruits and vegetables into near monocrops and changing them within just a few decades, it’s pretty clear that can be done for temperature changes. Though yeah of course temperature changing changes ecology, but why assume that change will be disastrous collapse