|
This thread focuses on the USA a lot but I was just wondering what are going to be the affects of Climate Change on impoverished nations. Specifically places like Ethiopia , Somali, etc.. I don't read to much on it and was wondering if someone had a great article on the matter. I know there will be vast swathes of land that are no longer inhabitable but where are these populations likely to go?
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
My particular interest lies more in Mexico and countries north of the Darien Gap, since I imagine there'll be a trend to emigrate northwards across Central America (and Mexico under pressure will in turn look towards the US). The expansion of the Sonoran will naturally drive people close to the border across it, that much is expected, but the economic/ecological situation for the rest of Mexico will affect its government's response to both that and how it deals with the US in general, and social unrest could result in an expansion of the drug cartels' power that could in turn shift their attention to their northern neighbor. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:This thread focuses on the USA a lot but I was just wondering what are going to be the affects of Climate Change on impoverished nations. Specifically places like Ethiopia , Somali, etc.. They will die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Fangz posted:They will die. No poo poo. Eh I came up with a impact story https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...bf3b_story.html And this http://blog.oup.com/2016/04/climate-change-africa/ Of course the outlook isn't good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:This thread focuses on the USA a lot but I was just wondering what are going to be the affects of Climate Change on impoverished nations. Specifically places like Ethiopia , Somali, etc.. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The problem with the whole "creating life still causes harm" is that anyone who actually believed this sort of poo poo would just kill themselves. What does "creating harm" even mean? Like a million people at least kill themselves each year, you don't think any of them "actually believed this sort of poo poo"/were grappling with those issues?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:Like a million people at least kill themselves each year, you don't think any of them "actually believed this sort of poo poo"/were grappling with those issues? Well I mean if you're going to adopt "life is suffering" as a mantra I don't know why you'd think posting about it on forums would do anything but get you laughed at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Well I mean if you're going to adopt "life is suffering" as a mantra I don't know why you'd think posting about it on forums would do anything but get you laughed at. A person who believes that nothing matters is probably not going to hold your opinion of whether they should post in high regard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Major population displacements are about the only thing that will cause violent terrorism vs private industries within the US. It's been mentioned over and over in the threads, but you need an exceptional amount of anger boiling across a large swath of demographics, with grievances that can be pinned to a target, in order to trigger that kind of response. I think people make the barriers for terrorism seem greater than they really are. Back in the 60s and 70s you had tons of what were usually fairly well-sheltered college age kids in America and Europe running around killing people and bombing places in the name of minuscule Ultra-leftist organisations seemingly without much support from the general populace. Its important to remember that terrorism can establish itself even if its not particularly popular, and it wasn't like economic conditions were that bad at the time. Even now you see some very violent terror attacks from small Radical Muslim groups scattered around the west. I really wouldn't be surprised if domestic terror related to Global Warming began again in the near future, especially if employment remains crap (and/or gets worse due to automation), living standards fall for a lot of the population, income inequality keeps rising and macho hard right movements represented by people like Trump and Le Pen continue to gain traction. It would be close to a perfect storm. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Yeah, people are overestimating how much effort it takes to cause a disruptive, violent event. I mean, we (Americans) live in a country where there's are multiple mass shootings every month and where there have been several armed fringe groups squaring up with the government on a small scale basis. Combine a bunch of political and social unrest with an aging, decrepit infrastructure and a soon-to-be dismantled or privatized government, then throw in a handful of climate events and it's easy to see things popping off. Although when people talk about eco-terrorism I think we mostly envision Greenpeace ramming whaling boats or whatever. I think we're more likely to see the opposite sort of action, i.e. people violently disrupting adaptation or mitigation efforts because it would diminish their privileged little corner of the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Anti-natalism works from a philosophical standpoint that we may destroy all life on the planet and it would be better if some species survived over the human race. This is a really bad idea because we're in the last 500 million years of complex life on Earth and civilization has arisen only once in the last 3.5 billion years. Most people are aware of the 5 billion year life left on the sun but many are not aware that increasing solar brightness will put Earth outside the habitable zone within 500 million years. Like nowhere on the surface lower than the boiling point of water dead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This is a really bad idea because we're in the last 500 million years of complex life on Earth and civilization has arisen only once in the last 3.5 billion years. No, it still works as a philosophy. It's a human centric viewpoint and bias that says we are the most special species on earth. There are several animal species with complex life and what we would define as societies that exist now. You value human life over say dog life because you are a human being. We're a egocentric race. By the way this argument is also the consciousness trap argument that says really consciousness isn't really that special either.I don't agree with this argument but I am also someone who believes the universe is completely indifferent to the human race. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
It's reasonable to assume that this is the best shot at a more advanced civilization than our own that the Earth will ever get, for two reasons. First, the easiest way to get past where we are is to start where we are. Starting from nothing will be much harder. Second, birds and whales have been around for a very long time and they've never written anything down much less launched a rocket. In the very long run, it's reasonable to assume that if Earth life wants to be more than a mote that eventually dies out, we're its best shot. That may seem a ridiculously long term point of view but happily it squares with not ruining everything we like in the short term either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's reasonable to assume that this is the best shot at a more advanced civilization than our own that the Earth will ever get, for two reasons. First, the easiest way to get past where we are is to start where we are. Starting from nothing will be much harder. This makes perfect sense in a philosophical / utilitarian viewpoint. Also, I don't believe that we as a human race will go extinct because we have the technological ability to create arcologies and biospheres to some degree. So maybe we'll get a ruined world dotted with climate controlled enviroments etc..
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Watch as Earth slowly dies over 30 years! https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse/#v=61.08289,-147.0517,8.77,latLng&t=0.00
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's reasonable to assume that this is the best shot at a more advanced civilization than our own that the Earth will ever get, for two reasons. First, the easiest way to get past where we are is to start where we are. Starting from nothing will be much harder. Well, assuming civilization-forming intelligent life needs to be endothermic, landbased and amniote that would mean it probably took roughly 250 million years to get to us? If worst case human-caused mass extinction does occur like its looks like it will you'll still have a lot of surviving animals that meet those requirements and more, like corvids, canines, rodents, psittacines and some primates, maybe if all humans went extinct it would be easy enough for the next civilisation building species to emerge over the remaining 500 million years of habitable earth time? One thing I've become curious about recently is whether or not animal cognition has been on a rough but continuous upward rise since the major animal groups evolved. Like I'm pretty sure everything was a whole lot dumber back in the Cambrian period, but even going back to the times of dinosaurs scientists don't usually seem to have very flattering estimates of the mental capacities of early dinos. But they also seem to consider the brain sizes of later dinosaurs like Troodon TRex to be quite a bit more impressive than similar dinosaurs ages before them, like Allosaurus. And compared to animals today, Troodon, the dinosaur stereotypically seem as 'the smart one' wasn't much better than a modern day Opossum(which is a dumb animal), it would be totally outclassed in the brains department by current day dinos like Crows and Parrots. So maybe the next civilization creating creature is just around the corner, on a geological timescale anyway. Anyway don't mind me, I find talking about animal smarts soothing after thinking about the existential dread of what Climate Change will do to us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:One thing I've become curious about recently is whether or not animal cognition has been on a rough but continuous upward rise since the major animal groups evolved. Like I'm pretty sure everything was a whole lot dumber back in the Cambrian period, but even going back to the times of dinosaurs scientists don't usually seem to have very flattering estimates of the mental capacities of early dinos. But they also seem to consider the brain sizes of later dinosaurs like Troodon TRex to be quite a bit more impressive than similar dinosaurs ages before them, like Allosaurus. And compared to animals today, Troodon, the dinosaur stereotypically seem as 'the smart one' wasn't much better than a modern day Opossum(which is a dumb animal), it would be totally outclassed in the brains department by current day dinos like Crows and Parrots. So maybe the next civilization creating creature is just around the corner, on a geological timescale anyway. This is hard to gauge because we usually equate intelligence to how much a non-human thing can act like a human. We consider modern animals to be "smart" because they've adapted to our presence. Short of some as yet undiscovered species of frog in the Amazon or Cthulu-esque thing on the bottom of the ocean, every animal, insect, etc on this planet has had to figure out how to exist around us. Primates, domesticated animals, and any species that we live in close proximity to for agricultural reasons (cows, horses, birds, etc) are a bit "better" at it for obvious reasons. Basically using human cognition as the yardstick for anything else is not the best metric. Even if any species can adapt fast enough and live long enough to develop advanced cognitive capacity (and that's a big if), it might look so alien to us as to not even be recognized as cognition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Watch as Earth slowly dies over 30 years! For the past four hours I've been playing this on glaciers in BC which I am familiar with / know are large: Ha-Iltzuk Icefield, Athabasca, etc. But what caught my eye is that the massive semi-permanent snowpack which once girdled BC across the Spatzizi Plateau entirely vanished around the turn of the century, and the coast range & rockies snowpack has decreased by a third. Then I scrolled down and watched Utah undergo desertification in real time. Holy loving poo poo. 
Rime fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
So, I'm thinking of trying to move someplace relatively nice to wait out the incoming apocalypse in relative comfort. Anyone got any ideas for what areas will be the least turbo-hosed in the next few decades?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:So, I'm thinking of trying to move someplace relatively nice to wait out the incoming apocalypse in relative comfort. Anyone got any ideas for what areas will be the least turbo-hosed in the next few decades? I reckon New Zealand will be just about the best suited to endure what's coming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Watch as Earth slowly dies over 30 years! I recommend zooming in on west virginia or Wyoming to check out some surface mining.  It's unmistakable, just look for the patches resembling a bacterial colony in a petridish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I reckon New Zealand will be just about the best suited to endure what's coming. Yeah, I keep running across articles about how parts of New Zealand are being quietly made into rich people's apocalypse bunkers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Watch as Earth slowly dies over 30 years!  It's crazy scrolling around that map and seeing how rapidly cities have grown, like Dubai. It's kinda hard to see how that poo poo can be sustainable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Rime posted:
It is a shame we don't have this kind of resource for LA - supposedly the LA metroplex desert was an Eden before we hosed up wetlands and waterways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Hey, remember that good news about how China's coal production had peaked in 2013, years ahead of schedule?Despite Climate Change Vow, China Pushes to Dig More Coal posted:A lack of stockpiles and worries about electricity blackouts are spurring Chinese officials to reverse curbs that once helped reduce coal production. Mines are reopening. Miners are being lured back with fatter paychecks. From http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/energy-environment/china-coal-climate-change.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Hey, remember that good news about how China's coal production had peaked in 2013, years ahead of schedule? Welp. Between this and Donald Trump, I give it maybe two or three years before global economic growth and CO2 emissions are advancing in lock step again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Wow China revised it's coal usage up again?! I'd almost be surprised if they hadn't been doing this every year for forever!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
It's not that they revised upwards the previous numbers, but they realized they did not have enough coal for various reasons and are frantically mining more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Mozi posted:It's not that they revised upwards the previous numbers, but they realized they did not have enough coal for various reasons and are frantically mining more. Clearly they need even more nucular power plants to replace coal plants 1:1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:58
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Clearly they need even more nucular power plants to replace coal plants 1:1. Sarcastic or serious?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
I saw this thread and decided to read it because I work for an Green Energy company, and now I see why they're spending so much time in lovely red states on Solar and Wind Projects. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
If I live in Seattle, should I seriously consider moving? Looking at projections, my place won't actually be underwater but it's still a cause for concern. What should I be doing right now to help?
Elderbean fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:If I live in Seattle, should I seriously consider moving? Looking at projections, my place won't actually be underwater but it's still a cause for concern. What should I be doing right now to help? West coast people should probably worry more about the Cascadian fault than climate change in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:If I live in Seattle, should I seriously consider moving? Looking at projections, my place won't actually be underwater but it's still a cause for concern. What should I be doing right now to help? No, major changes in 1st world industrialized nations are still decades out, because we can buffer them with our great wealth. And if there's some kind of weird, sudden globally catastrophic event, the effects of which are enough to destroy a Seattle or a San Francisco, then there's no place in the world where you could be safely isolated from its knock-on effects (social disturbance, martial law) short of the classic off-the-grid Tremors doomsday guns-and-tinned-food bunker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Sarcastic or serious? Serious. Though obviously nuclear plants are also good if the replace coal at a ratio other than 1:1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:West coast people should probably worry more about the Cascadian fault than climate change in my opinion. I mean this is definitely true, but the west coast (not sure about the pacific northwest in particular) is actually pretty hosed over the long term by droughts, more serious wildfires, and likely groundwater issues. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if California ends up as ground zero for early issues that are both meaningfully difficult to deal with and undeniably tied to climate change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Hey, remember that good news about how China's coal production had peaked in 2013, years ahead of schedule? Sure hope all those miners the world over really enjoy the next five years before it all falls apart, but so much worse again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Serious. Though obviously nuclear plants are also good if the replace coal at a ratio other than 1:1. I would think this would be a good route for them compared to other first world nations since they don't have to deal with the myriad of hurdles we have to deal with before you can get a nuclear plant running.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure China is building nuclear as fast as they can and mining coal as fast as they can all at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I saw this thread and decided to read it because I work for an Green Energy company, and now I see why they're spending so much time in lovely red states on Solar and Wind Projects. Holy poo poo. Your company does installs in China?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:46
|
|