Anthropogenic Climate Change

So when is it gonna start getting very bad?

When the temperature rises above 2º C in comparison to pre-industrial levels, that's when you'll start seeing significant sea level rise. The average of estimates, going by Wikipedia, seem to put it around 2050. Florida's coast will probably be devastated by then.

It's not like we're not already seeing its effects in place. The 2003 european heat wave killed around 70,000 people and hurricane seasons are getting a bigger number of major ones with the years passing.

Edited by Grafite on Sep 29th 2018 at 1:32:57 PM

Life is unfair...

And the 2018 heat wave had the following effects on Europe, that I know of (there might be others that I haven't heard of):

• Increased mortality rate (I don't know exact figures yet; the UK has estimated 1,000 deaths but has yet to confirm that (to compare, the UK death toll for 2003's heat wave was eventually reported as being 2,000)).
• Devastated crops — not just for human consumption, but also for livestock consumption and alcohol production (especially wine). Note, this is a combination of heat, drought, and devastating flash flooding in certain regions.
• Lack of grass production for livestock silage, putting livestock farmers into a more long-term crisis as a result of being forced to use up their winter forage stocks before summer is even over.
• Severe drought conditions, affecting livestock farming, crop farming, wine production, human water supplies, and beer production (breweries were forced to close down due to water shortages).
• Nuclear reactors forced to close down (sea water and river water becoming too warm to cool reactors properly).
• Electricity grids crashing across Europe.
• An extreme algal bloom in the Baltic Sea, poisoning water for both humans and animals. It's the largest outbreak for decades.
• Multiple severe wildfires, more common and more severe than normal.
• Increased flash flooding events, where extreme rainfall would happen in very short periods of time between heat waves.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Sep 29th 2018 at 11:07:00 AM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Given that the "pause" in global warming is probably over...it wouldn't surprise me if in the next few years things really spiral out of control.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Well...i'm on the verge of panicking, anyone else?

Panicking won't fix anything, so why bother?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

So waiting for the inevitable is the only thing we can do?

No. It's too late to avoid a climate crisis, but it's not too late to mitigate the effects. Another way to think of it—we know that agricultural production is going to decline, and deaths + property damage due to natural disasters is going to increase—but by how much? A lot or a little? That's still under our control.

I think there’s a global conspiracy to see who can get the most clicks on the worst lies

We can also still work towards ending the source of the crisis so that the problem doesn't get worse, or at least, more than what it is predicted to be.

Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.

I imagine things like large scale indoor farming and cultured meat will become much more widely used.

Cultured meat is hard to say because at the moment no one (that I'm aware of) is quite sure of how the economies of scale will effect that.

Though to be fair when it comes to beef at least, it would have to pretty bad in terms of negative side effects to not come out ahead of actual cattle farming and the resultant methane production.

Edit for typo

Edited by KnightofLsama on Oct 2nd 2018 at 5:17:29 AM

So what happens to all the cows in the case we manage perfect artificial beef that doesn't harm us? We let them die out or actively work to drop their numbers to a certain range? Or give them something to help with their gas issues?

Secret Signature

My guess is start cutting back on breeding, set caps and quotas on how many heads of cattle a particular business can have by a certain time. Obviously just killing them all off in some mass cow extermination is inhumane, and I think might even be harmful, what with all that dead flesh suddenly lying around everywhere.

The artificial light and heat required for large-scale indoor agriculture is highly carbon-intensive, so you'd probably just be exacerbating the problem more than anything.

Aeroponics has the potential to be vastly more efficient at food growth than traditional farming, but it won't catch on until or unless it can provide a significant economic advantage, and we can push out agrarian culture.

Anyway, people probably won't give up their addiction to meat any time soon, and not without a massive cultural shift in First World nations. It may take vast environmental devastation to force a choice.

Edited by Fighteer on Oct 1st 2018 at 2:11:18 PM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

addiction feels a bit strong.

Secret Signature

Thinking within the mindset of current economic models isn't going to provide a solution. It's been demonstrated that resource consumption and GDP are inextricably linked with each other, and that means any economic growth will only lead to an increase in resource consumption that exacerbates the problem.

Since our economic system is centered on the accumulation of capital (financial or otherwise), that means economic growth is necessary to keep it functioning. But we've reached the point where degrowth is what's most needed, and our current economic systems are built to discourage degrowth wherever possible.

So, Capitalism is the problem.

Capitalism is part of the problem. Another part of the problem is the sheer long-term cost of the restructuring of major economies, transportation sectors, construction and what have you. The UN report that was just released specified the costs, which are as high as $54 trillion. To put that number into perspective, the United States of America, the largest economy on the planet, has an annual economic output of roughly 16 trillion.

This is an expensive, long-term investment with no payoff (or worse as capitalism perceives it, negative payoff,) which makes modern capitalist states and non-state actors extremely reluctant to make the shift.

The single largest non-state energy consumer in the world is the Department of Defense, which presents its own cultural problems, considering both major political entities in the US generally agree on the idea that Thou Shalt Not Fuck With The Uniforms.

Edited by math792d on Oct 9th 2018 at 9:38:40 PM

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

The gross world product is about $78T.

But I get the impression that our continued survival as a species is worth less to most of the powers that be than a single year's profits.

One factor is that most of the ones running things aren't spring chickens and will be dead soon either way.

Disgusted, but not surprised

That money is useless if they are dead.

They'll be dead before it's useless.

Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele

After a point, money hoarding is useless to bougies anyway. They just keep hoarding out of a Smaug-like reflex and because they like the power.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

The driving force behind the super wealthy is that no amount is enough. You always have to have more, and you always have to compete with your other super wealthy peers. Keeping Up with the Joneses, super-sized.

We all have our forms of status seeking and validation and one-upmanship. For the super rich, it's the size of their mansions, the value of their stock, their place on the Fortune 500.

Edited by M84 on Oct 9th 2018 at 6:41:04 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised