Radbot posted:

I just don't understand the faith people are placing in "technology will save us and we won't technically go extinct in the next 100 years due to +4C", while it's pretty clear the world economy teeters on a knife's edge as it is. To me, it's not about us being physically capable of surviving climate change, it's about it not being an insanely destabilizing influence on everything humans do.

down with slavery posted:

Just because the world economy teeters on a knife edge doesn't mean we're going extinct. I think you have way too much attachment to our current material circumstances. Do you realize that the vast majority of human existence looked nothing like what it does today and everyone was fine? Like people had lives and feelings and things?

down with slavery posted:

Just because the world economy teeters on a knife edge doesn't mean we're going extinct. I think you have way too much attachment to our current material circumstances. Do you realize that the vast majority of human existence looked nothing like what it does today and everyone was fine? Like people had lives and feelings and things?

FAUXTON posted:

The fact that it took "the vast majority of human history" to reach the current state of civilization doesn't exactly bolster your argument. Everyone was fine because they were adapted for the circumstances of their time, and in all but the last century or so, that adaption is well past having died out of human memory. It doesn't even begin to be as facile as "attachment."

FAUXTON posted:

The fact that it took "the vast majority of human history" to reach the current state of civilization doesn't exactly bolster your argument. Everyone was fine because they were adapted for the circumstances of their time, and in all but the last century or so, that adaption is well past having died out of human memory. It doesn't even begin to be as facile as "attachment."

Inglonias posted:

There are people who live in countries where this doesn't happen at all. Places like Somalia spring to mind for me, for instance. Not everyone on Earth has a silver spoon in their mouth.

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

Yup, literally just posted this above, except I wasn't as nice about it. Yea, try being born in one of the poorest developing countries, seeing people live such lovely lives that even if they spent all of their income on food they would still go hungry, watching their lovely houses get destroyed when El Niño comes along, etc...

Uranium Phoenix posted:

4C isn't going to kill everyone. It will be horrific, but "we're all literally dead" is hyperbole.

A Bag of Milk posted:

Oh good, so extinction is off the table for the near future. I feel better already.

A Bag of Milk posted:

Oh good, so extinction is off the table for the near future. I feel better already.

Trabisnikof posted:

Hyperbole about human extinction makes it more difficult to convince people that the real impacts are valid and require action.

Trabisnikof posted:

Hyperbole about human extinction makes it more difficult to convince people that the real impacts are valid and require action.

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

Unfortunately the world is divided into a bunch of rival capitalistic nation states and that makes things a lot harder

A Bag of Milk posted:

Who here is making hyperbolic statements about human extinction?

Trabisnikof posted:

Anyone who says human extinction is likely in the next 100 years due to 4+C

Kurnugia posted:

A world without internet is a world not worth living in.

ChairMaster posted:

Do you seriously think that humans are gonna die off because we're too spoiled from having a good as poo poo life for a couple centuries then not being able to cope with things going lovely? That's fuckin dumb, dude. There's plenty enough resources on the planet to keep a breeding population of humans going. Humans aren't going extinct unless someone gets around to building a serious rear end bomb that can blow up the Earth or poison the whole atmosphere or something.

Trabisnikof posted:

Hyperbole about human extinction makes it more difficult to convince people that the real impacts are valid and require action.

A Bag of Milk posted:

Nobody said that.

Radbot posted:

I just don't understand the faith people are placing in "technology will save us and we won't technically go extinct in the next 100 years due to +4C"

Kurnugia posted:

So the question I keep asking myself is, do I have reason not to be utterly pessimistic about the prospects of humanity to survive this century on Earth?

Radbot posted:

It's funny watching people hand wave away the collapse of modern civilization like that wouldn't be a big deal. A lot of people would die. I guess it's goony to be concerned about the greatest Holocaust humanity will ever endure though, since technically humans will still be able to eke out a miserable existence.

Trabisnikof posted:

The collaspe of modern civilation in the next 100 years either has nothing to do with climate change or is completely unsupported by climate science.

Kurnugia posted:

How much of the world's arable land do you figure we could lose and not have a more-or-less global collapse of civilization? How much arable land do you figure we're going to lose at +2C? What about at +3C? +4C?

quote:

For the major crops (wheat, rice, and maize) in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late-20th-century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Projected impacts vary across crops and regions and adaptation scenarios, with about 10% of projections for the period 2030–2049 showing yield gains of more than 10%, and about 10% of projections showing yield losses of more than 25%, compared to the late 20th century. After 2050 the risk of more severe yield impacts increases and depends on the level of warming. See Figure SPM.7. Climate change is projected to progressively increase inter-annual variability of crop yields in many regions. These projected impacts will occur in the context of rapidly rising crop demand.

All aspects of food security are potentially affected by climate change, including food access, utilization, and price stability (high confidence). Redistribution of marine fisheries catch potential towards higher latitudes poses risk of reduced supplies, income, and employment in tropical countries, with potential implications for food security (medium confidence). Global temperature increases of ~4°C or more above late-20th-century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally and regionally (high confidence). Risks to food security are generally greater in low-latitude areas.

quote:

For most economic sectors, the impacts of drivers such as changes in population, age structure, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, and governance are projected to be large relative to the impacts of climate change (medium evidence, high agreement). Climate change is projected to reduce energy demand for heating and increase energy demand for cooling in the residential and commercial sectors (robust evidence, high agreement). Climate change is projected to affect energy sources and technologies differently, depending on resources (e.g., water flow, wind, insolation), technological processes (e.g., cooling), or locations (e.g., coastal regions, floodplains) involved. More severe and/or frequent extreme weather events and/or hazard types are projected to increase losses and loss variability in various regions and challenge insurance systems to offer affordable coverage while raising more risk-based capital, particularly in developing countries. Large-scale public-private risk reduction initiatives and economic diversification are examples of adaptation actions.

Global economic impacts from climate change are difficult to estimate. Economic impact estimates completed over the past 20 years vary in their coverage of subsets of economic sectors and depend on a large number of assumptions, many of which are disputable, and many estimates do not account for catastrophic changes, tipping points, and many other factors. With these recognized limitations, the incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income (±1 standard deviation around the mean) (medium evidence, medium agreement). Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range (limited evidence, high agreement). Additionally, there are large differences between and within countries. Losses accelerate with greater warming (limited evidence, high agreement), but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above. Estimates of the incremental economic impact of emitting carbon dioxide lie between a few dollars and several hundreds of dollars per tonne of carbon (robust evidence, medium agreement). Estimates vary strongly with the assumed damage function and discount rate.

Winter Rose posted:

Has anyone ever actually done that sort of interdisciplinary analysis of how climate change could (or currently is) affecting social/political/economic systems?

Trabisnikof posted:

^
Yes, that's what this IPCC report does. There are tons of other studies too. The IPCC is inherently conservative in their results since it is a consensus document.


Well, there's a nice report that this group called the IPCC did you might want to read if you're interested in the topic: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

But please make sure to read where they define their terms as they use them in very specific ways.


Fig SMP.7:

Note that this figure includes a wide range of climate response scenarios including a no adaptation scenario. So when you see the 20% potential for massive crop losses in the out years, that's if we stopped adapting (which we're funding much better than mitigation because its easier to sell).

Here's another chart looking at the range of possibilities of % change per decade by crop:


Edit: to drive the point home about climate change and the global economy...

Kurnugia posted:

I think I read the last year's version of that, but thanks.

Kurnugia posted:

But really, my question was what would be the consequences if we lost a few percentages of agricultural yields by say, 2030? You'll remember what caused the Arab Spring I'm sure. Point being, it doesn't take a whole lot to make social order to shake. How much does it take for it to crumble?

quote:

For most economic sectors, the impacts of drivers such as changes in population, age structure, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, and governance are projected to be large relative to the impacts of climate change (medium evidence, high agreement). Climate change is projected to reduce energy demand for heating and increase energy demand for cooling in the residential and commercial sectors (robust evidence, high agreement). Climate change is projected to affect energy sources and technologies differently, depending on resources (e.g., water flow, wind, insolation), technological processes (e.g., cooling), or locations (e.g., coastal regions, floodplains) involved. More severe and/or frequent extreme weather events and/or hazard types are projected to increase losses and loss variability in various regions and challenge insurance systems to offer affordable coverage while raising more risk-based capital, particularly in developing countries. Large-scale public-private risk reduction initiatives and economic diversification are examples of adaptation actions.

quote:

Climate change over the 21st century is projected to increase displacement of people (medium evidence, high agreement). Displacement risk increases when populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather events, in both rural and urban areas, particularly in developing countries with low income. Expanding opportunities for mobility can reduce vulnerability for such populations. Changes in migration patterns can be responses to both extreme weather events and longer-term climate variability and change, and migration can also be an effective adaptation strategy. There is low confidence in quantitative projections of changes in mobility, due to its complex, multi-causal nature.

Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence). Multiple lines of evidence relate climate variability to these forms of conflict.
The impacts of climate change on the critical infrastructure and territorial integrity of many states are expected to influence national security policies (medium evidence, medium agreement). For example, land inundation due to sea level rise poses risks to the territorial integrity of small island states and states with extensive coastlines. Some transboundary impacts of climate change, such as changes in sea ice, shared water resources, and pelagic fish stocks, have the potential to increase rivalry among states, but robust national and intergovernmental institutions can enhance cooperation and manage many of these rivalries.

Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence). Climate-change impacts are expected to exacerbate poverty in most developing countries and create new poverty pockets in countries with increasing inequality, in both developed and developing countries. In urban and rural areas, wage-labor-dependent poor households that are net buyers of food are expected to be particularly affected due to food price increases, including in regions with high food insecurity and high inequality (particularly in Africa), although the agricultural self- employed could benefit. Insurance programs, social protection measures, and disaster risk management may enhance long-term livelihood resilience among poor and marginalized people, if policies address poverty and multidimensional inequalities.66

(bolded in source)

Radbot posted:

It's funny watching people hand wave away the collapse of modern civilization like that wouldn't be a big deal. A lot of people would die. I guess it's goony to be concerned about the greatest Holocaust humanity will ever endure though, since technically humans will still be able to eke out a miserable existence.

Trabisnikof posted:

Because critics will point out these unsupported claims and use a wide brush to discredit the valid ones. We need to give critics of mitigation and adaptation less ammo not more.

Hello Sailor posted:

Critics are capable of pillaging strawmen for ammunition at will and this thread should be proof enough of that. Limiting the scope of our arguments to known certainties keeps us from using the tools that the critics are using to sway their audiences.

Kurnugia posted:

Let's limit our discussion only a very small set of very boring topics like climate change advocacy politics and *faaaaaaaaaaaaaart*

Trabisnikof posted:

Hello Sailor posted:

Okay, then citation needed. Go ahead and prove that people can't be moved to action by anything other than scientific fact or that scientific fact is the most effective motivator to action.

Critics use emotional appeal, which is not automatically the same thing as "fear, untruths, and distrust".

quote:

The number of wild animals on Earth has halved in the past 40 years, according to a new analysis. Creatures across land, rivers and the seas are being decimated as humans kill them for food in unsustainable numbers, while polluting or destroying their habitats, the research by scientists at WWF and the Zoological Society of London found.

“If half the animals died in London zoo next week it would be front page news,” said Professor Ken Norris, ZSL’s director of science. “But that is happening in the great outdoors. This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live.” He said nature, which provides food and clean water and air, was essential for human wellbeing.