Consequences of Climate Change
Assuming climate change is real, and that it is accelerating, and that we are heading towards and beyond a 3 degree rise, what are the likely consequences for the human world and the wider environment, and how can a lover of nature and humanity best assist the world through the coming disruption?
We ought to approach these questions from the perspective of the science since this is the practice which highlighted the problem to begin with. It is with this perspective in mind that I intend this thread. I also intend to play the role of moderator more than contributor.
We ought to approach these questions from the perspective of the science since this is the practice which highlighted the problem to begin with. It is with this perspective in mind that I intend this thread. I also intend to play the role of moderator more than contributor.
Comments (238)
Things that come to mind:
1. Focus on local issues: ones workplace and town/city. Run for something, petition, vote, etc. Public utilities are a good place to start. Town councils. City councils. Boards of directors. Etc.
2. Electrify everything. Although much electricity generation comes from natural gas and theres problems with transmission lines, electrification should continue as much as possible. Its much easier to clean up the electric grid than it is to wait until its completely clean before going electric. Heat pumps are a great example better to replace those old furnaces now.
3. Divest from anything that supports fossil fuels. Take your money out of banks and put them in credit unions. Invest in green companies and research. Make sure your retirement funds arent heavily skewed towards fossil fuel companies.
4. Buy local as much as possible. Big Ag is a major contributor to emissions. Eat less meat, especially red meat.
5. Take public transportation as much as possible.
Many more
Climate change is basically weather becoming more volatile (larger extremes) and generally hotter.
That will mean less arable land and generally more extreme living conditions which will reduce habitable zones on earth.
That will cause displacement of people and a large amount of migrationpressure out of the central latitudes where most of the earths population lives now.
Immigration-pressure, water shortages and food shortages from more frequent crop failures, will cause more unrest within countries and more conflict between countries.
Longer term you have the pole-ice melting (quasi-)permanently, which means sea levels will rise. And that means a lot of the coastal cities will have to relocate.
Finally it also has a mulitplying effect on further breakdown of ecological systems and biodiversity-loss.
The atmosphere will be more humid than it is now. Some areas will experience increased rainfall and probably flooding. Some areas will become dryer because of changes in wind patterns. Right now water rises into the air at the equator. It follows a current toward the poles. When it reaches a band of low pressure zones, the water dumps.
Increased warming makes the low pressure zones go north, so water presently being dumped in the Great Plains will be dumped in Canada. I'm guessing someone told Trump this, which would explain why he wants Canada.
A lot of people will be on the move to escape the severe downsides of global heating. Climate refugees will find a cold welcome in the territories into which they move. Good luck on making peaceful, equitable adjustments.
The globe will experience a population loss across many species, including our own. Fresh water is already one of the choke points. Paradoxically, there will be far too little clean drinkable water in some places, and far too much fresh water in other places. Salt water is already encroaching on coastal cities.
We are already seeing many of the effects, which will intensify and accelerate due to feedback loops. Wildfires wipe out vast swathes of forest, which not only diminishes the carbon capturing capability of vegetation, but contributes to airborne particulates and gases. The oceans and great lakes are already growing warmer; in the salt water, this means changed migration patterns of sea-life; in fresh water, lower levels and increased algae bloom. The melting of polar ice will eradicate some species and the melting of permafrost is creating sinkholes that emit even more methane. And ancient bacteria and viruses for which we are unprepared. The glaciers are disappearing, which means so do the rivers they feed. Water shortages follow.
The summers, even in northern latitudes, are increasingly hot, such that people in cities are dying of heatstroke if they can't get to a shelter. Those who have AC are a huge drain on the power supply, which can cause local hydro outages, alongside those caused by turbulent storms in every season. We're already seeing more frequent and deadly tornadoes, blizzards, ice storms, hurricanes and rainstorms. Changing wind patterns make forecasting difficult, drive sudden rises and plunges in temperature and shift the movement of clouds, which results in unprecedented droughts and floods. All of the foregoing affect crops around the world, with consequent shortages in staple foods (don't expect cheap coffee or cocoa anymore), killing livestock and hindering remedial efforts. Destroyed infrastructure cost vast amounts of resources to replace.
TBC with mitigation ideas.
Canada will not gain a lot of arable land, even if its territory warms up. What are the obstacles?
a) The Canadian Shield, for one. The Shield is the craton or hard rock core of North America and most of it is either exposed or very close to the surface.
b) the Canadian Rockies. Wheat doesn't grow well on mountain sides. Much of western Canada is mountainous.
A lot of Canada is flat, wet, and forested. It won't become good farmland.
The parts of Canada that can be cultivated are being cultivated.
How long is "longer term".
How long will it take for sea levels to rise enough to cause coastal cities to relocate?
While a few states have sound policies, most are poorly prepared and who knows what will happen to funding in the near future. Europe has done much better and china seems to be working on the problem. You can certainly find out what projects are underway or in effect where you live.
Think, also on the community and personal level.
Try to ensure your energy production, with solar panels, wind generators, geothermal, hydro or wave action equipment. Some Native communities have a head start on this. Make sure all buildings are fitted or retrofitted with the best possible insulation. Earth sheltered is best, BTW. Every neighbourhood should have a space large enough and robust enough for an emergency shelter, with food and water supplies laid in for the entire community far several days, at least a backup generator and communications device of some kind. Hold drills.
Get to know your neighbours and find out what skills are available: co-peration saves lives. Organize teams to look after the most vulnerable in case of flood, fire, extreme wind and heat. Set up local hydroponic and community gardens for fresh produce. (There will be more frequent interruptions to the supply chain, as well as rising prices.) Preserve as much fruit and vegetable as possible for lean times and establish a central food bank for staples. Train community members in essential health services and acquire sufficient medical supplies for an extended period.
Personal considerations to follow.
Oh, that's changing all the time. But there will be more deaths from cold, heat, water, wind, ice and snow.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Canada is not the British Isles. and 2024 is not 1988.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
That's still not how it works.
There could be 1.2 billion climate refugees by 2050.
I wish you were right. You're not.
Heat and health
Risk of heat-related deaths has increased rapidly over past 20 years
Quoting What share of heat deaths has already been attributed to climate change?
And so on. Plenty of data, for those who take a look.
When youre a climate denier, data and evidence dont matter. Better to go with ones feelings.
The second "once-in-a-century" flood in six years.
Sea surface temperatures are higher than ever, leading to a very later monsoon season and hence to the inundation. Pretty direct causal link, as these things go.
And there is more to come.
I guess they will have to stop raising cattle and move into rice production.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/05/bigger-than-texas-the-true-size-of-australias-devastating-floods#img-1
The dinosaurs started dominating the planet during two million years of flooding. Most scientists think the flooding was a result of global warming set off by volcano emissions of CO2. There's a good PBS documentary about it.
Now that change in climate was fast - a half-million years or so.
The present change in climate is more like instant.
True. It will heat up in a big spike that will last a few thousand years, and a long tail will drag on for about 100,000 years. At that point the CO2 will be back in the oceans. In geological time that's nothing.
200,000 people were suffering from hot weather. Then they took shelter in aggressively air-conditioned offices. All dead within hours.
Make sure you have enough necessities - clothing, bedding, hygiene products, non-perishable staple foods, including dry pet food if applicable (there won't be much for dogs and cats to hunt, after) batteries (better yet, get a radio, flashlight and tools that don't require batteries).
Change your diet. Become accustomed to canned meat or no meat. (The latter is also a service to the planet)*
Plant a garden and indoor hydroponics if you have any space in which to do it; if not, join a communal garden.
Insulate your home to the nighest standard possible.
Install whatever power generation device you can afford and accommodate.
Do not have a baby. Teach older children basic survival skills.
Get whatever dental and preventive medical work you can afford.
Lay in the largest possible supply of needed medications (may be difficult under regulations) and OTC supplements.
Build a library (non electronic) of how-to books.
Always have a go-bag ready for each member of the family.
* for the planet: stop using superfluous appliances. Get a meter to find out how much power appliances are drawing when not in use (a lot!) and get power bars with off-switches to turn them off. Replace greedy appliances with more energy-efficient ones when you get a chance. Use all of them less.
Change your diet. Less meat, more locally sourced food.
Stop buying heavily plasticed frivolities and overpackaged foods.
Support local business rather than multinationals.
Reuse, recycle and compost.
Learn to repair and preserve things instead of throwing away and replacing them.
Stop feeding and mowing your lawn: plant edible herbs instead.
Drive less; get bicycles for your family; walk. Fly never if it's at all avoidable, and for heaven's sake don't go on ocean cruises.
I'm sure you can think of more.
The thing is: this is not a what-if threat, but a how-soon one. Climate change is very real and happening all around us, totally oblivious of and indifferent to denials.
This comment might get deleted by Moliere.
You are correct, Canada is not the British Isles. Canada is much colder than the British Isles.
You said 2024 is not 1988, but the numbers are since 1988. not for 1988.
Balderdash! There will be more deaths due to cold, heat, wind, water, snow, ice, droughts, hurricanes, famines and wars.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
You are allowed to talk about anything you can back up with evidence. AFAIK, there no positive consequences. The one(s) you referred to so far are bogus.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
That'sstill not how it works. Learn the science.
It's not a question of credentials, but one of finding factual information and reliable predictions.
It's not that hard. Give it a try.
https://indigenousclimatehub.ca/effect-of-climate-change-on-landscapes/
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.4558
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/understanding-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-sub-arctic-groundwater/
https://www.caryinstitute.org/news-insights/media-coverage/ancient-subarctic-forests-risk-climate-change-and-war
FFS, learn how it works!
:up:
Cruises are so awful for the environment, its insane.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Both of these observations are correct. Very good.
The depth of soil covering much of the US (let's say north of the Ohio and Missouri Rivers) has been accumulating since the retreat of glaciers from this area about 10,000 years ago. Over that time, between 20 and 100 inches of topsoil has formed (figuring an inch ever 100 to 500 years depending on specific conditions). Across large areas, the topsoil accumulated on top of various subsoils left by the receding glaciers forming soil with very good structure.
Northern Canada consists of tundra which is a treeless biome characterized by cold temperatures, short growing seasons, and permafrost, typically found in Arctic and alpine regions. Tundra is not "soil"; the plant matter hasn't been warmed up long enough to decay into humus. Further, the tundra does not have the firm structure of soil which would allow it to be cultivated, even if other factors (like temperature) allowed it. When tundra thaws, it becomes soft and squishy and will produce tons and tons of methane which will add to global warming.
There are large swaths of Canada covered by boreal forests. Leave the trees alone.
So, even if the average daily temperature of the tundra is the same as central Kansas, it will take a very long time for the tundra to dry out, decay, and become tillable fertile soil. In addition to that, there is no certainty that the temperature so close to the North Pole will ever be warm enough to grow whatever you want to plant.
Our best bet is to grow food for direct human consumption (no large animal feed; maybe no animal feed at all) wherever there is already good soil, sufficient water, and tolerable climate. If we can't grow enough food on the good land that exists now, then the population will shrink. I don't like that, but it seems inescapable.
Could you please provide a link to where this claim is made?
Did you read the article from Advanced Science News?
Understanding the impact of climate change on sub-arctic groundwater
- As permafrost thaws, the potential for groundwater storage may increase, increasing the possibility of using groundwater as a resource.
- 99% of domestic use water in the Yukon is from groundwater, and approximately half of Alaskan residents rely on groundwater for their drinking water.
- There are also many advantages; it is drought resistant, often has lower treatment costs, and can be pumped where needed.
That sounds a bit like positive news to me.
Perhaps you should read this article to "learn how it works" with boreal fires in Canada.
https://www.preventionweb.net/news/forest-fires-north-americas-boreal-forests-are-burning-lot-less-150-years-ago
Here are some highlights:
- North American boreal forests burned much more 150 years ago than they do today. In the earliest period covered by our data, between 1700 and 1850, the annual area burned was between two and more than 10 times greater than what has been observed over the past 40 years.
- [fires have] a strong influence on ecosystems, but not necessarily negative
- On the other hand, fires have always been part of forests, and are sometimes even essential to their ecological functioning. Most of the time, the burned landscape will gradually give way to vigorous young trees, which grow into a mature forest in some 50 to 100 years. Some tree species are even dependent on fire to regenerate and as a result, maintain themselves.
- Many animal species are also fond of burned forests. Charred tree trunks provide food for certain insect species, such as the black long-horned beetle. Insects in turn provide abundant food for birds, like black-backed woodpeckers, which use snags (dead standing trees whose roots are still anchored to the ground) to nest.
Did you know about that? Have you learnt anything?
Yes. "But did you think of this!" is pretty much off topic because, like any natural phenomena, there will be many things that relate to it -- we can talk about the effects of climate change on window prices in Paris, and prattle on forever on what is pretty much not the topic while appearing to be addressing the topic.
If you want to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of climate change, this could mean that you are accepting that climate change is an issue that actually exists. I am addressing you with this because in the few conversations we had (when we discussed Valencia's flood), it seemed to me that you were in denial of climate change.
That would be my fecund mind. I thought it was obvious that I was joking.
Absolutely!
I do find that people who are alarmed about climate change make a lot of "jokes" which can't be backed up with evidence.
You might think some people are just alarmist about climate change, whilst the latter also can have its advantages, but our worrying about the situation and the uncertainty of the future can't let us see it.
So there are two kinds of groups here: when temperatures increase with climate change and poles will defrost, some would see it as catastrophic, but @Agree-to-Disagree would say: "hey, arable lands will be suitable in Russia, and people will not die of extreme cold!"
I want this thread to consist of less trolling. After your first attempt I decided it was important to have a public record to refer to. From here out I'll be deleting comments related to how tundra will become arable, how cold kills, or other unrelated trivia that basically distracts from the topic at hand in order to ignore what's being talked about.
Agriculture is a big part of the OP isn't it?
Sure.
Looking for silver lining in order to say that global warming is good, actually, is not.
There is nothing good about global warming, in this thread.
You are correct, I am not an alarmist.
I believe in climate change but I don't believe that it will be as bad as many people claim. You may have heard the phrase "A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on". People who are pessimistic about climate change blame climate change for every bad thing that happens. I can only debate one issue at a time.
It seems to me that many people who are pessimistic about climate change are only aware of recent history. They don't bother looking further back in time because they just want to believe the worst. Have a look at this post about North American boreal forests burning much more 150 years ago than they do today. This contradicts the common beliefs held about fires in North American boreal forests.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/15317/agree-to-disagree
The comment had been made that there will be less arable land. Surely it's appropriate to talk about what the science behind that says? Or is that approach not in keeping with the spirit of the OP?
Yes it is.
In order that I might have a rule to point to the rule is -- there is nothing good about climate change.
So comments of the form "Have you considered that this might lead to a positive thing?" are what are off topic.
That's actually an anti-scientific approach. Worse than asking silly questions, really.
alas, such is the nature of forum discussions. The proper scientific discussion gets published -- we get to comment on it.
I still applaud your effort @Moliere.
But, as I said, now that we have the record, no more.
Yes. But I think the reason we're focusing on him is that without him we have an echo chamber. I guess that's what some people want. Peace out. :cool:
I understand your position, but I think you should also understand why people are pessimistic.
I think there are good examples of that. There were catastrophic natural disasters in Southeast Asian countries (like the Philippines or near the coasts of the Bay of Bengal); hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts, floods, etc. in recent times.
Sadly, those nations are very poor and undeveloped. Each natural disaster forces the population to move; they suffer from scarcity, and the public budget is not enough to face those expenses, so the government asks for an international loan, making the currency undervalued. In conclusion, if the Philippines and Bangladesh are already poor, a natural disaster (like a flooding) makes them poorer.
We can say that those events only happen each time. But science is showing us that they are occurring more frequently. One of the main causes of having deadly floods is due to the impact of climate change in countries like Bangladesh or Pakistan. So, in my opinion, I understand why people are negative towards this topic. If you think deeply on it, there are more disadvantages than advantages in experiencing a change in the climate of the territory you are living in.
This is interesting: During the period 1901 to 1975, the highest annual rainfall as recorded was 327 percent of the normal in 1917. The lowest annual rainfall amounting to only 34 percent of the normal was recorded in 1920.
It is a 2011 research. But now, checking the same zone (Sirsa, India) they say: [i]In March 2025, the rainfall in Sirsa was 0.300 mm, which was an increase from the previous month.
In April 2021, the rainfall in Sirsa reached an all-time high of 12.600 mm.[/i]
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/india/rainfall-by-district/rainfall-haryana-sirsa-normal
I think it is comprehensible why people are pessimistic about the effects of climate change.
A new report, commissioned by the International Chamber of Commerce, estimates that climate-related extreme weather events have cost the global economy more than $2 trillion over the past decade.
https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/new-report-extreme-weather-events-cost-economy-2-trillion-over-the-last-decade/
If global warming is allowed to reach 3°C by 2100 from pre-industrial levels, cumulative economic output could be reduced by 15% to 34%, the report says, while investing 1% to 2% of cumulative GDP in mitigation and adaptation to limit warming to 2°C from pre-industrial levels would reduce economic damage to just 2% to 4%.
Rapid and sustained investments in mitigation and adaptation will minimise the economic damages and come with a high return, says the Executive Summary. Mitigation slows global warming by cutting emissions; adaptation reduces vulnerability to the physical impacts of climate change. Investments in both must rise significantly by 2050 9-fold for mitigation and 13-fold for adaptation. We estimate that the total investment required equals 1% to 2% of cumulative economic output to 2100.
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2025/new-report-from-bcg-and-cambridge-on-climate-change-investment/
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/investing-in-climate-action
The latter numbers are of course estimates, based on the somewhat optimistic forecasts of the IPCC
and interpreted by economists. But the former are more solidly founded in actuarial accounting.
These reports are already a year old, and the climate has not improved. This is particularly bad news because ordinarily, we would be in a cooling part of the El Niño/La Niña cycle.
The problem I have with the argument is that it is made from the perspective of the world, while economic decisions are made by countries and companies.
Say some country would want to make the mitigation efforts of 1 to 2 procent of GDP per year. It will only see return on that investment of avoiding climate change effects if everybody, or at least a good majority of countries, makes those investments too. And since countries are permanently locked in geopolitical competition, the country investing a part of its GDP will be at a disadvantage because it has less GDP to spend on other things.
The first thing that needs to be dealt with is this collective action problem, because otherwise it does not make sense for individual countries or companies.
How we could survive in a post?collapse world
One of the things that concern scientists about the current climate crisis is the incredible speed of it, which @Banno mentioned above. Animals with legs or wings or maybe even slime trails can probably keep up with the movement pole-wards of their accustomed temperature zone. However forests can only move the distance they can project their seed per however many years it takes for a seed to become a fertile tree. There are pioneer species that can move much faster - berries that are eaten by birds, and so on. So there is potential for humans to assist the movement of flora.
The situation for the oceans is more difficult, although one might imagine it easy enough for fish to migrate. Unfortunately, the warming of the sea surface leads to stratification, and because there is less mixing, nutrients are reduced, phytoplankton are also reduced. Phytoplankton absorb CO2 and produce oxygen providing both food and oxygen to fish. Large parts of the oceans are becoming almost sterile.
https://news.ucar.edu/132759/climate-change-creating-significantly-more-stratified-ocean-new-study-finds
I never liked fish much anyway. But a lot of people depend on fish.
So far, most comments here have focussed on what individuals can do to adapt to what is coming. One possibility seems to have been overlooked: One can die.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Indeed. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma. Prisoners need some moral fibre to avoid the worst of all possible worlds. Your not liking the argument doesn't really change anything. Solidarity is the answer; solidarity in life, or else in death.
An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of Nodes of Persisting Complexity
It has little to do with me liking it or not, the argument just doesn't cut it for those that need to take the decisions that matter.
Goverments are not going to make the leap out of a sense of solidarity, because geo-politics is typically not a very moral business.
Some kind of enforcable global deal needs to be made between the powers that be.
Yes, and it has been talked about. Need more?
https://futurism.com/the-byte/climate-change-drying-rivers
https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935120315966
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2022/november/shifting-frontiers-mapping-africas-agricultural-land-under-a-future-climate
The great green wall project to hold back the Sahara was going quite well... until Trump.
Russia and Canada are not improving, either.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/climate-change-will-reshape-russia
https://press.un.org/en/2019/gaef3519.doc.htm
OK?
Yes.
No.
Can you show the relevance of groundwater to the ability of tundra to grow food crops?
Can you show the relevance of 200-year-old forest fires to our present desperate need to capture carbon, rather than emit more carbon?
Or, really, any relevance to climate change at all?
No, climate change is not good news for anybody.
I'm working on it.
Of course we need collective action which has to begin here and there without evidence that everyone else will join in. It has begun and is accumulating. Some states, some utility companies, commit to low carbon electrical generation. Some others don't, some others do. But then it becomes apparent that wind and solar are actually cheaper than fossil fuels. And here and there other states, other utility companies order up some turbines and solar farms. Faster change would be better, of course.
Quoting unenlightened
So, here and there some individuals and communities survive -- probably more because they were lucky than because they pivoted, adapted, and adjusted continually. The title is too optimistic. It should be "How we might POSSIBLY survive in a post-collapse world, but don't bet on it".
Or maybe I'm pessimistic because I'm old and all the pivoting, adjusting, and adapting that is called for sounds absolutely exhausting.
Per your link:
"Agriculture is very sensitive to weather and climate.4 It also relies heavily on land, water, and other natural resources that climate affects.5 While climate changes (such as in temperature, precipitation, and frost timing) could lengthen the growing season or allow different crops to be grown in some regions,6 it will also make agricultural practices more difficult in others.
"The effects of climate change on agriculture will depend on the rate and severity of the change, as well as the degree to which farmers and ranchers can adapt."
With any long predictions we have to choose starting assumptions like how much CO2 will have been emitted during the chosen timeframe. Then we need a computer model (or two).
Armchair climatology is where we get genius insights like the fact that CO2 is good for plants. Let's try to avoid being just like the idiots we criticize.
I think the survivors would likely be those who happen to be in a favourable micro climate, like a high valley in the Himalaya. Or a mountainous Island away from the tropics.
That's why I said enforcable.
I don't think governements will do it out of their own volition, or can't because of the wrong incentives. Take Europe for example. We were doing some of the mitigation (not enough), but now the US is asking to raise military spending to 5% of GDP while putting tariffs on our exports which will possibly lead to a recession. And our economy was already hurting because of higher energy prices... It think in this context it will be very difficult for politicians to sell more spending for mitigation to the public. This isn't about morality.
It is exactly about morality, because the only escape from the prisoners' dilemma is for the prisoners to be moral; if they are logically expedient, they lose. If governments do not do the right thing for the world because it is the right thing for the world, the world is fucked. Your explaining the logic to me doesn't change the logic, it just shows how we are fucked. because we have no morality.
The way to escape the prisoners' dilemma in geo-politics is negotiation and coming to some kind of supra-national agreement.... you create incentives so the prisoners don't choose the default bad option.
The elderly will die in droves during the summer months from heat related illness - this already began a few years ago. The demographic timebomb from plummeting global birthrates in the political north - the research centre of climate robust technology - will increasingly centralise and ultimately undermine the levers of power for climate adaptation, leading to broad popular unrest in response to starvation and growing fascist sentiment. Stymieing hopes for further adaptation.
This leaves the former rich slumped dead in their air conditioned gated communities, their corpses watched over by autonomous drones. The drones' targeting systems misfire on the piles of sunburnt bodies strewn at the gate, mistaking every leathered rictus-grin for anger.
Finally, under the sun, we rot together in absolute biological equality.
I would be happy if governments acted in the interests of their own populations, predominantly and consistently, never mind the whole world. This concern is highlighted by Trump's current predations.
Climate migration is going to increase. Even communities imbued with charitable generosity in destination zones will be able to absorb only so many people. Then what? Enter the autonomous drones?
I do not see how this is a philosophical topic. If you would like a scientific answer then this would be something for a science forum right? What are the philosophical questions you are after here?
Yeah I think they'll be rolled out as automated border police, initially, then the communities will shrink. North and South Korea already have this tech, it's also already around some military restricted zones in the USA.
For example, how much do you value future generation compared to living generations? Or how much do you value nature, only instrumentally or is there something more inherently valuable?
Seeing this purely as a scientific question, as if we can just ask scientist what to do about it, has been one of the problems it seems to me.
Ohh, yes, I agree with you. There are philosophical questions related to climate change certainly. It needs a rephrasing of the question, or at least, a question more focused. 'Rights' of future generations is a philosophical question, the designation of this era as 'the anthropocene' is a philosophical question, intrinsic value of nature is a philosophical question. Indeed, the framing of the question as a scientific queestion, is a philosophical question. To me, the way the question was phrased, was unclear. What philosophical question are you (OP) after? It was phrased in scientific terms.
What ought we to do collectively?
That's kind of philosophical, but also practical . We pretty much all know what should be done, needs to be done, by governments and global organizations. We also know that many of the former won't and that the latter will try despite of the governments.
What ought individual citizens do? That's also an ethical question. And we all pretty much know the answer and also that most people are more frightened of their governments than they are of climate change and won't be desperate enough until it's too late (if it isn't already).
So, we know that the climate has changed and will continue to change for the worse.
All that remains is the practical consideration of escape, self-protection and local mitigation. The very rich can escape, for a short time. Many people in prosperous nations can devise some degree of self-protection. Some communities and a few fortunate nations can enact mitigating measures - at least until they are overrun by climate refugees or involved in the ensuing climate wars.
I believe we are nearing the end of philosophy as well as professional baseball, psychiatry and haute cuisine.
Are we capable of securing our long term survival and what would that involve.
That is a factual question, not a philosophical one. It is just as factual as whether water boils at 100.C.
Quoting Punshhh
The question of what the ties that bind us are, may be philosophical, yes. The question of how we can reinforce them is more sociological or a matter of political science. Whether this might involve the widespread use of technoregulation for instance, that might be an ethical question. There are many philosophical questions relating to climate change, but that an issue is important does not make it inherently philosophical. I do not want to derail the thread to the question 'what is philosophy'. I would just like to know what philosophical issues relating to climate change would the OP like to discuss? As it is, the questio: 'how should we deal with the common disruption?' is philosophical perhaps but rather broad.
And the answer is?
The ecological view on climate change and ecological collapse more general, is often that civilization and growth itself has been the problem that got us to where we are. While this may be true, it does get us into this logic of degrowth or civilizational collapse as the only possible ways 'forward'.
Problem is that this account 1) almost has to lead to a re-interpretation of most of our civilizational tradition as bad or misguided because of where it ended up and 2) it gives us and next generations very little to work towards or aspire to.
It think even before the physical effects get to us, the psychological effects might bring us down. If you wipe away the horizon... you get nihilism.
My intended role is to allow others to bring up the philosophical questions that ought be explored while maintaining a thread which basically respects the scientific consensus -- so less a contributor on where the conversation goes and more a contributor of where it cannot go (a moderator). We already have threads where the scientific consensus can be questioned, so this is a thread for philosophical questions under the assumption that the science is more or less right.
It is discussed, and psychological community help is available too.
see here for example: https://www.deepadaptation.info/the-deep-adaptation-forum-daf/
But it is not 'let's pretend it's not really so bad' sort of help.
More generally, people may not be aware that eco-philosophy, deep ecology, have been being studied and discussed for a long time now.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4291
And here are the barebones principles that Naess proposed.
https://www.deepecology.org.au/blog/2022/04/22/the-ecosophy-platform/
Lots more interesting stuff on this site too.
People in psychological distress regularly show up at the climate change subreddit. There was a message directed at them pinned at the top, basically trying to undo misinformation that had been provided in clickbaits.
I've been down the limits-to-growth rabbithole. It's doesn't pretend it's not so bad, that's right, but it does put itself diametrically opposed to (our) civilization. There is no way we achieve the values you quoted there and keep our current civilization going.
That basically means you are either in permanent opposition to the current order, probably without much prospect of changing it because typically not enough people will be on board which such drastic changes, or you just give up on society alltogether and you go live somewhere of the land or in a small community isolated from the rest of society.
And it seems to me you still have the basic problem of 8 billion people relying on a technologically advanced but ecologically destructive system for their survival. I don't see how you go from where we are now to living in harmony with nature without a lot of people dying.
A lot of people are going to die. I can appreciate that that is not what people want to hear; in the seventies it might have been done gently, now it's too late.
Ok, fair enough. Then I will also assume that for the sake of argument at least you also accept the images of a hothouse world, the disasters, droughts, changing weather patterns etc. that accompany this narrative. (I do not use 'narrative' pejoratively, as if it were 'just a narrative'; I mean it in the sense of a coherent set of storylines that present to us a problem, its origin, the solution, and its key protagonist.) There is little more we can do in terms of truth claims. We are philosophers and not natural scientists, so basically any prediction of what will happen in detail transcends the limits of our abilities. Questions of ontology and epistemology are then mostly sidelined and the issue becomes one of ethics.
Ethical questions I can think of are questions related to whether our moral imperatives still hold under the threat of imminent catastrophe. For instance, is begetting children the right thing to do towards future generations? We know they will inherit a world of imminent catastrophe. Is such a life worth living, or are they better off not being born? Second to what extent is deontological ethics affected by imminent catastrophe? Kantian doctrine of imperfect duty holds that one should not violate imperfect duties because it will make the world unlivable, but if it already is, or becomes, are we still bound? Thirdly, to what extent may we suspend ordinary freedoms and civil rights to avert catastrophe? Does imminent catastrophe, which renders civil rights moot, present a state of exception under which civil rights should be conditional anyway?
In all of these questions, a time dimension comes in. The threat is imminent but has not realized itself yet and we do not know if there may be solutions in the future. What is the measure of certainty we need to have before fundamentally altering our legal and moral order?
Yup -- though scientific papers and the like would be of interest, of course, the epistemology and ontology are largely decided and wrestling with the consequences is more what we can ask as philosophers in this thread.
In that vein we don't know the future, exactly, but we do know that none of the possible futures, given that the narrative is true, are good. I don't believe extinction is on the other end, but untold misery is in the cards -- at a minimum we're already seeing island nations being destroyed by rising sea levels. As things progress mass migration will become an issue, and that's concerning in a world with nations that are picky about who gets to cross the border, and who have large militaries to protect their various claims on resources that, given the scenario, will be dwindling.
I say "at a minimum" because these things are happening now, and if the narrative is true, will only get worse.
In agreement with this, to give a relatively simple parallel to it:
In the early 2000s, Bill Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins both relatively well off people, to say the least campaigned for an estate/death/inheritance tax in America to the following effect:
Quoting billmoyers.com
The corporate media didnt give this campaign much if any coverage we wonder why and I was only exposed to it via a Bill Moyers episode of NOW, which aired on PBS (which is currently dying).
It makes a lot of sense: For a family, everything under 7 million dollars does not get taxed a penny. And everything over 7 million would be taxed an approximate 50% - uniformly across the board. (With the same applying to the cap of 3.5 million for any one individual.) Taxes then go back into the system: for infrastructure, for education, for research, etc. all of which serve the public good and make society stronger. And meritocratic competition would be preserved for all: the richest person on Earth would yet have the greatest sum of inheritance to give to their own children to start them off with in life.
But, even if this campaign would have been given more coverage and would have picked up steam, it wouldnt have worked. American millionaires would have been at a loss in respect to non-American millionaires world over. Such that the offspring of non-American millionaires would then have had substantially greater capital to start them off in life then their American counterparts. Thereby nullifying the meritocratic competition previously addressed on a global scale. So it then only makes sense that most American millionaires (obviously excluding Gates Sr. and Collins) were contra this campaign and its proposals.
The only way to make such an estate tax viable (whose implementation should make a lot of sense to at least most of us) would be to make it globally applicable this without any exceptions. But, maybe obviously, this would then require a global governance.
I'm thinking this or similar understandings might help alleviate this:
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804114
Clearly neither of you understand the prisoner's dilemma. You, the prisoner, cannot "create incentives", you have to rely on each other's solidarity - or not.
I do understand it. The prisoner's dilemma is set up so that the prisoners can't talk to each and don't know what the others choice is going to be when making their choice. Also it's a one off situation where their actions don't have any other longer term effects other that those stipulated.
In that hypothetical situation what you say is true. But luckily we don't have to live in splendid isolation, we can talk to eachother and trust can be build up over many instances of facing similar dilemma's... that changes the math.
It isn't exactly a prisoner's dilemma, but it is a collective action problem.
I concur with
But if youre going to get all technical about it, the most interesting part of the prisoners dilemma game theory is in discovery of those strategies that outcompete others within iterated versions of the original game theory:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Axelrod's_tournament_and_successful_strategy_conditions
In summary, altruistic heuristics that retain a sense of justice with the tit for tat with forgiveness program exemplifying this do best long-term, outcompeting all other strategies that can be employed in this particular game theory. Learned of this back in university days. To me, it's a rather nifty empirical means of addressing theoretical issues of ethics - ethics which, lo and behold, turn out to have their pragmatic advantages long-term.
That said, such altruistic heuristics are something direly missing in most of todays politics, especially in regard to climate change. As just one notable example, the Kyoto Protocol is long gone now, and an abject failure precisely due to the lack of such strategies.
Yes. Moral rectitude. So when we have lots of crises with human induced climate change, we might learn to deal with it, eventually.
One can only hope. But it is certain not to happen devoid of involvement, and maybe even commitment, on the part of most members of humanity in sharing at the very least this common cause. And, although the details might be lacking, such can only then signify a global governance of one form or another. May it indeed be one of moral rectitude.
In other words, we are doomed.? :death: :death: :death:
In other words, we are doomed.? :death: :death: :death:
Are you volunteering to be the world dictator? What is needed is easy to specify - to stop carbon emissions and work to restore the environment. But who is going to do the binding? Some very stable genius, no doubt.
In other words we're doomed - by and large. Such is the logic of our irrational self-interested inclinations.
https://showyourstripes.info/c/europe/unitedkingdom/liverpool
And lets get our conversation more sparky ...
"Preprint of Peer-Reviewed paper in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS):
Warming Stripes spark climate conversations: from the ocean to the stratosphere
https://t.co/8ayLndsnEe
Abstract:
The warming stripes are an iconic climate data visualisation, adopted globally
as a symbol of our warming world. We discuss their origin and uses for communication,
including understanding long-term changes in the climate and consequences of future
emission choices. We also extend the stripes concept to explore observed temperature
variations throughout the climate system, revealing coherent warming for the troposphere
and upper ocean, and cooling in the stratosphere, consistent with our understanding of
human influences on our climate."
I'm not advocating for a world government, just an agreement like we've had for many other things like the UN, WTO or more specific for the ozone layer or nuclear weapons.
Honestly I don't get the aversion for the idea, when it seems clear to me that this is the only way forward.
It is the only way forward because geo-politics has always and will always be a thing, and it determines and constrains what is possible. To deny that is to deny reality... and so we get stuck on solutions that are purely idealistic because they deny a basic part of our existence.
It's like this aversion for any kind of power-structure is so deeply routed in our culture, that we'd rather have the world end, before we allow some concentration of power that could actually do something.
But I guess maybe that is the way we want it to go, so the apocalyse can finally reveal all our sins and judgement can be passed on the wicked.
If the AMOC collapses it could change the other way rather quicky in Liverpool.
Would you rather be a big fish in a small pond, or a small fish in a big pond?
I'm not averse to an agreement; I'm all for an agreement. I don't think it's going to happen; I think it's wishful thinking, for reasons I already went through. So suppose for a moment that there is no agreement to be had; shall we do what we can anyway, or shall we do nothing?
Right. Nothing to look forward to and strive for on the horizon ... because its all nihilism. He, he, and a ha, ha. I'm not laughing, though. After all, this very perspective sort of entails its own meaninglessness.
Quoting unenlightened
Thee heck are you talking about???
If we don't find agreement on a global level then the incentives won't be there... and I think you'll see a mad scramble for the remaining fossil energy sources and other resources, as everybody will be desperately trying to fend off collapse. Morality typically takes a back seat in such circumstances.
The ecological point of view on all of this is more suited to a post-collapse world it seems to me, when larger structures have already broken down.
My view is that the world is changing now, and that opens possibilities for good, and for bad. I think we need more people on board to try and make the best of it. And to achieve that we can't be to morally pure about it. There's going to be a lot of pain no matter how you slice it.
But in any case, I don't plan to go quietly into that good night.
Unfortunately, before we start to feel the full impacts of climate change, we will turn on each other. Its in our nature.
The important thing to avoid is failed states and states controlled by authoritarians denying climate change. Because they stop moving in the right direction and may go backwards. Also you cant reason with leaders like Putin and leaders who prioritise their survival in office over everything else.
I am talking about the politics of climate change, where no government is taking serious action to adapt or mitigate because there is no incentive to do so unless everyone else is already doing it and pressuring, and no one has any incentive to do so because everyone is out for themselves and their larger clan. This is a one time situation, whereby we know what needs to be done, but not doing it until everyone else is doing it is "advantageous". and everyone knows that too, so green parties do not get elected because they would make 'us' poorer to the benefit of others. And the only solution would involve people stopping with the self-interest, and acting and voting for the common good. Those that have not already learned this will not learn in this one-off situation because it is really hard to actually understand viscerally how very fucked we all are unless we change our morals and start acting on them.
Yeah, assuming all you say is true, this is a ridiculous suggestion. It's like saying all we've got to do to save the zebras is to change their stripes and then growing frustrated no one will heed your suggestion.
I've not been able to change a single crazy person when in a relationship, but here I've got to change humankind.
Just saying, we will not "change our morals." No chart or graph suggests there will be moral change correlating to global change.
It is like suggesting we can end war by being peaceful. Yes, but that sort of takes a global effort, else our peacefulness leads to compliant slavery, but at least we did our share.
Let us assume then we won't change our morals, what is option B?
And it's not "we're all fucked. " it's seeking more limited solutions through technological discovery that doesn't otherwise disrupt economic stability. It's an abandonment of trying to push hard regulation and conceding your're working within a framework of unyieldimg competing interests. You're not going to change those you've designated as crazy. Yelling at them for being morons won't push them into submission.
I'm advocating building better umbrellas for the coming rains. We're not stopping the rain, so we're the crazy ones if we keep talking about it like we are.
Trump Administration Fires Hundreds of Climate and Weather Specialists
[sup] Yale Environment 360 · Apr 11, 2025[/sup]
Will they shut down NASA's efforts as well?
It is not just a question of morals. Many people hold beliefs which justify them doing nothing. You need to change these beliefs before it becomes a moral issue.
Many people believe whatever it is convenient to believe to maintain their lifestyle and comfortable identity. This is a moral failure. You ought to believe what is reasonable to believe, not what is comfortable to believe. This is a fundamental moral commitment to truth, that is the foundation of the possibility of communication. Thus when people do not have that commitment, they are unpersuadable and communication becomes impossible.
There is so much exaggeration and hype about climate change that it is hard to know what is reasonable to believe. When the statements from scientists show an exponential trend towards doom, gloom, and catastrophe it is hard for many people to take them seriously. Given that there is a lot of uncertainty about what will happen with climate change many people feel that it is reasonable to avoid taking drastic measures.
You obviously think that most people are "totally unreasonable and vacuous".
Thank goodness we have you to guide us.? :grin:
Are you claiming that there is no exaggeration and hype about climate change?
Rather than claiming "not P", I read un as claiming the form of your argument is:
P
P
Therefore, P
Which is to say you're asserting your opinion three times in a row and citing each rendition as support for the conclusion which is just what you stated at first.
The claim is with respect to the validity of your argument and not with respect to the facts.
I think you understood this, but now that it's been explained there ought not be any doubt.
What you're doing in the first post I quoted is asking a leading question which is not addressing the claim. This will be considered a way of disrupting the thread from here out.
No, not at all. Not even the slightest amount. On the contrary I might even sometimes exaggerate myself, and more rarely indulge in hyperbole. But some exaggeration and some underplaying averages out at a serious problem, not at 'do nothing'. And my earlier links to actuarial evidence rather demonstrates that there is already a serious problem.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Most people are worried but ignorant. You are not most people. And don't tell me what I obviously think according to your warped notions. I am fairly clear about what I think and not backward about coming forward with my thoughts, particularly on this topic, you arrogant prat; you, and none other, I accuse of being totally unreasonable and vacuous.
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/2025GlobalTemperature.15April2025.pdf
This is rather complex, so I will do my best to give some explanation of the situation and possible significance.
James Hansen has for a while been suggesting that the IPCCs models are wrong in their estimate of climate sensitivity. This is a crude but vital figure that gives the global expected temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 equivalent. This is fundamental to climate modelling, and Hansen is suggesting that the IPCC figure is low at 3°C by about 1.5°C This is huge.
What seems to have happened is that the IPCC has used its own estimate of the climate sensitivity to calculate from recent actual data, the aerosol climate forcing. This is the temperature reducing effect of pollution (primarily from shipping) by seeding cloud formation such as to reflect solar radiation back into space. This pollution has in effect been masking somewhat the effect of CO2 (equivalent) induced temperature rise, but recent reductions of sulphur emissions are now reducing the cloud cover and thus increasing temperature rise from insolation.
So if the IPCC figures are correct, then we should expect a fall in global temperature this year due to La Nina, (google it if you don't know) but if Hansen's figures are more realistic, he thinks there will be little or no cooling this year. And this would mean that we are already well past 1.5° and pretty much unable to avoid 2° and more in the next decade or so. And all the other figures - for sea-level rise, atmospheric energy and so on - will also be under-estimated in speed and severity.
So there is uncertainty in the science, but errors in the 'official' understanding are more likely to be overly complacent than alarmist.
In terms of consequences the next 20 years will cause much more. Since the free market cult doesnt account for externalities, and since the government never does anything right (according to same cult), theres nothing we can do.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08751-3.epdf?sharing_token=H5u0C4WGGIkJGCgWbd9eJdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PNVn5qNJQAINIGB8Dl-ZFRseL9v-xVGqFBTn1TeHE_3ueXbo3snVixx3hvsfWgmcaPCnna09SMvt9h8HRBx8EHJnhK9__dORtj8jDr9f7gV6pbSI3Rpd2nqWosrIBEQf_279y5d4WhGC7w6CE0eEdyt5N-ru0E9WwHqgsnL01OkGKaAt1Bk58IOl-dosZblNM%3D&tracking_referrer=www.cbsnews.com
Of course, if you actually believe cult claims like that, I have a used wig to sell you.
Lack of food is an obvious worry. If agriculture can adapt to the current insecurities I do not see much reason to fret about climate change just yet.
Sorry there is nothing for you to moderate here ;)
Food is the priority.
I read the article you linked. My problem with the analysis that it fails to cast any blame at those who USE fossil fuels.
True. But its similar to cigarette smoking and tobacco companies. Sure, one perspective puts most of the responsibility on the consumer no one is forcing you to smoke. But that ignores a lot as well.
The fact is that these externalities are never considered. If consumers knew the real risks and were charged the real cost, it would be a different story. Theres also monumental lies, propaganda, and covering up of research by this industry, as is now coming to light more and more.
I agree that those who USE fossil fuels should be held to account. They are the ones who create the demand for fossil fuels. The Oil companies supply fossil fuels to meet the demand.
Quoting Mikie
Blaming Oil companies for supplying fossil fuels is like overweight people blaming supermarkets for supplying food. The overweight people are trying to avoid their personal responsibility.
If I create a product thats addictive, and I know is addictive, and that causes cancer (which I also know), then spend decades suppressing that knowledge (and my own research), billions of dollars on propaganda to convince people the blame lies on them, lobbying government for tax exemptions, subsidies, and deregulation yeah, I think Im mostly to blame.
To say nothing of the externalities, to medical costs and environmental damage. Hardly the free market of choice. Especially when readily available alternatives are systematically discouraged for years.
If you were that person, you would think otherwise, or else you would act otherwise. But how does this help? I can feel righteous and innocent because I have been speaking and acting environmental for 50 years. Hurray for me, I'll go to heaven. But I'd rather be mending this world.
Surely it is up to "us" to boycott the bullshit, to counter the propaganda, to vote out the liars and thieves. "They" are not going to do it by definition.
Of course.
I was merely pointing out yet another reason this industry ought to be boycotted, sued, and destroyed as quickly as possible.
This has involved three men working for about ten days with a digger, a dumper, and a compactor and delivery and removal lorries, not the electric kind. We helped out one of the guys who needed phone charged as he was homeless and trying to deal with the authorities.
Today, we are awaiting the final crowning glory - the artificial grass. The effort and expense that has gone into creating this small sterile desert is considerable, but the little boy's football ground will be guaranteed level and weed free.
Behold, the enemy!
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu8826
The late, great Anthropocene. :monkey:
One of the effects is that involuntary spending on repairs and rising insurance costs is somewhat dominating the rise in GDP, and this explains why people are effectively poorer even though the economy is growing, because they have to reduce 'discretionary' spending (on the good stuff). (See about 18 mins in.)
Make America Cool Again.
The US Climate Science Special Report projects that if emissions continue to increase rapidly, the global average temperature will be at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1901-1960 average, and potentially as much as 10.2 degrees warmer, according to Climate.gov.
The United States is projected to experience warming of 3-13 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
This warming will result in more frequent and intense heat waves, with the number of hot days exceeding dangerous conditions expected to increase significantly.
Sea Level Rise:
Sea levels are predicted to rise, potentially by 28-55 centimeters (11-22 inches) compared to current levels, even with carbon neutrality efforts.
The melting of glaciers and ice sheets, as well as thermal expansion of water, will contribute to sea level rise.
Precipitation and Extreme Events:
Changes in precipitation patterns are expected, with some regions experiencing more frequent and intense rainfall and others facing more severe droughts.
The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as storms, floods, and wildfires, are also projected to increase.
Other Impacts:
Ocean acidification, caused by the absorption of excess carbon dioxide, is expected to continue, posing a threat to marine ecosystems.
The Arctic is projected to experience significant warming and melting of ice, leading to changes in habitats and ecosystems.
But the content of your post, which does not mention or address the already happening economic effects that is my topic, shows that you have just posted a random summary of predicted future climate changes that do not address the economy at all.
I wonder why you bothered?
I think it was quantum entanglement. I'd been curious about which parts of N America will have increased rainfall in 2100. It's the Northeast.
It occurred to me to make the calculation, how much poorer people are in this case. It's down and dirty, but $1 trillion divided by 340,000,000, (US population) comes out at about $29,000 per person. Can that be right? Have I (ie google) got confused by American trillions?
Ouch! Small wonder folks are feeling unhappy. I live on less than that! It's enough to make a chap vote for Trump!
Edit: I think it's only $2,900. Still quite a sum for a family of 3 or 4 ...
I was more hopeful this time around when Trump was elected, because I thought with such a slim majority that most Republicans wouldnt repeal it since most of the money was aimed at red states. And that theyd be too busy transferring more money from the poor and middle classes to the richest to really care. So it looked like it was safe, and although it wasnt enough to begin with it got us closer to our goals and was a signal to the rest of the world that the US wasnt only a bunch of idiotic climate deniers.
But, turns out that nothing can get in the way of them doing the wrong thing. Through hell or high water, theyll be sure to slug it out until the future is good and fucked.
At this point, adaptation really should be the focus. Its already over, and today marks when the final nail was put in the coffin. Forget China or market forces.
Hansen's Executive summary
Hansen's paper'Seeing the forest for the Trees.'
https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6079807/v1_covered_209e5182-d9a5-4305-a4e0-70204151d2b3.pdf
And here is a nice man to explain it all to you in a slightly condescending sing song voice at least it's not an AI voice.
I don't fully understand the complexities of the statistical analyses, but the principles are straightforward enough; to find the overall trend in data subject to disruptions by "events", estimate the influence of the various events and subtract them from the data.
_____________________________________________
Meanwhile, in another part of the catastrophe, humans are busy poisoning themselves and the biosphere with bits of plastic, pesticides, endocrine whatnots, etc.
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/06/chemical-pollution-threat-comparable-climate-change-scientists-warn-novel-entities.
So that's the good news.
And a short discussion of the psychology of climate activism.
There really is nothing to discuss is there? It's all our funerals, and so no one will attend.
It might help you to know that our times are still one of the cooler ones geologically speaking: there have been periods of time on earth that had flourishing life and much hotter temperatures.
It's also possible that our activities will lead to mass extinctions, which isn't 100% a bad thing, since these cycles dominate the universe.
Yeah, I was at school during the Cuban missile crisis, so I've been expecting to go extinct for over 60 years now. But I think it is 100% a bad thing; I think humanity has some potential.
And so it goes.
Heavy is the head that wears the climate...
Well at least the troll (dont mention him by name) has left the thread.
Maybe we can now get back to serious discussion.
Meanwhile Bill Gates shifted his position from advocating for climate change mitigation to focusing more on improving human welfare. Katharine Hayhoe, who is (or at least was, last time I had heard of her) a Republican climate scientist, argues much more sensibly than Gates:
"People often think of climate change as a separate bucket at the end of a long row of other buckets of problems we're trying to fix that are wrong in the world," Hayhoe told Axios.
"This includes poverty, disease and access to clean water."
"Climate change is not a separate bucket," Hayhoe said. "The reason we care about climate change is that it's the hole in every bucket." (My emphasis)
I think adaptation is becoming the mainstream focus. Just in case our heroic efforts to reduce CO2 emissions fail, we can try to protect the most vulnerable.
That seems to miss Hayhoes excellent point. Its like saying that, in case our heroic efforts to prevent a global nuclear Armageddon should fail, we ought to divert some of our precious diplomatic resources from defusing the conflict toward setting up a trust fund for the survivors of the fallout. If something must be diverted, perhaps we could start with the colossal subsidies still flowing to fossil fuel companies (currently over $1 trillion/yr).
And the reason we can't get off of fossil fuels, is because without them we wouldn't even have buckets.
If you really think about it, either from a global or from a U.S.- or Western-centric perspective, the problem that this chart highlights appears to support Hayhow's buckets argument.
Climate change isnt a separate problem competing for attention with poverty or development. Its what makes all those other efforts leak. If Asia-Pacific coal consumption is surging because of poverty alleviation and industrial development, then mitigation isnt optional. Its the condition for those gains to be sustainable. With no mitigation, alleviation efforts become attempts to refill increasingly rapidly leaking buckets.
In other words, the very process of filling other buckets (economic growth, poverty reduction) is widening the hole (climate destabilization). This makes Hayhoes metaphor vivid, not refuted.
Geologically we are speaking in million-year or even billion-year time frames. Civilization only goes back thousands of years which on this time scale is hardly noticeable. Geologically we are and we are not, no matter. Global warming is only an issue to us because humanity, in a broad sense, is endangering its very frail short-lived outlier existence on a temporarily hospitable planet.
Thats a bit like saying the reason you cant put out the fire in your kitchen is that, without fire, you wouldnt have a stove.
Kind of funny how anyone using this message board would imply they are really doing some serious work while "the trolls" are not...
Just to let you know, *hint* *hint* mentioning someone isn't as graceful as you think it is, because you have no idea who reads these conversations.
Not sure you will do about the climate, the biggest abusers are militaries, and they tend to not listen to arguments for change. You can guilt trip yourself and others about their piddily squat emissions, but i'm confused about the scientific or philosophical justifications for such behavior.
Yes, that's very possible, but there's still a lot of unknown, which makes this all more interesting.
In 2022, the Chinese government approved plans to build about 100 coal burning power plants. Their use is accelerating in the face of what I'm sure they know about climate change. Coal is the CO2 source that most significantly impacts the future of climate change because there's still so much of it left to burn.
Hayhoe does make a great point, but it doesn't seem to be having any effect at all on human CO2 production. Nothing seems to have any effect. Thus adaptation.
Quoting Pierre-Normand
Aren't you essentially making the same point here, that resolving our problems (growth and poverty reduction etc) makes the problem worse (cause more warming because of CO2)?
Its more like saying that giving financial help to homeless addicts might lead them to buy more drugs, and concluding, therefore, that we shouldnt just help them financially, but should do so while also supporting their efforts to get sober and addressing the deeper causes of homelessness and addiction.
Hayhoes point is similar: we must improve welfare, yes, but not by diverting funds from mitigation, the equivalent of cutting detox and prevention programs to make the handouts bigger. That would only make all the buckets leak faster.
My point was that the goal of improving welfare is itself something that goes against the goal of mitigation, because in practice you end up using more fossil fuels, illustrated by the graph @frank posted.
Quoting Pierre-Normand
I can see how one gets to this conclusion, the reasoning makes some sense. It does assume however that we can increase welfare and reduce the use of fossil fuels at the same time, which seems like a big leap considering that the whole system we build after the industrial revolution is build on the energy from fossil fuels.
Isn't the more straightforward conclusion that increasing welfare for 8 billion people isn't possible without destroying the earths biosphere (which would eventually also destroy our welfare)?
Accepting that conclusion is a big ask however, because it is essentially incompatible with progressivism.
That is a misleading graph. The problem is not just coal, and not just the last 40 years, and furthermore, the slight decline in consumption in the West is the result of the export of manufacturing to Asia and China. Show the graph for the whole of the last century, and things would look very different. Show the consumption as weighted by population size and it would also look very different. Include oil and gas, and it would look very different.
Blaming the developing world for climate change is hypercritical nonsense. The West is still the main culprit, and has the wealth, education and responsibility to be the leaders and helpers in both adaptation and mitigation. But it is in fact Asia and especially China that is really leading the development of green energy technology.
Quoting unenlightened
That's never been true, but it became profoundly untrue after 2022. China isn't exactly a developing nation, though. It's categorized as semi-peripheral to the global economy.
Yes and you were pointing in entirely the wrong direction.
https://energydigital.com/top10/top-10-countries-using-renewable-energies
Not just in this thread, but all climate change threads.
-Moliere has erased at least one of their posts. Nothing wrong with this, as they have been a good deal more open about it than a lot of moderators i have been "graced to know" in some shabbier and less well-maintained corners of the internet. However, knowing that makes the situation harder to judge, as that user's first post in the thread was among the posts to be erased.
-The problem with that kind of attitude they have towards this thread is that the basis of the whole thing was concerns about the awful things that almost undoubtedly are going to happen.
-I didn't really sympathize with any of their statistical approaches against the alarmism, it's just "fact-vs-fact" instead of philosophy discussion.
I appreciate naming the things we are referring to in discussion overall, just because i literally did think you were hinting that maybe i was "the troll" since I responded to unenlightened in an almost opposite way. You all can worry about inevitable global warming from behind a computer screen (sometimes i do since the wildfires create air pollution, and GW could lead to extra crop failures and water shortages), but talking about it through computers is not really addressing the problem, or coming anywhere close to lowering the carbon emissions.
For example, it's important to know that militaries disproportionately create carbon emissions. Why this tends to stay out of news media discussions is beyond me, except maybe it doesn't mesh with the profit motive of the news industry. The U.S. military in particular is massive, i've read that it produces equal carbon emissions as the rest of the people in the united states do through normal consumption. So what exactly can anyone whatsoever do, given that the worst polluters are the least likely to change their behavior? Other people were bringing up the fact that the less dirty sources of energy would still require a lot of fossil fuel consumption to get fully operational (or at least that's how i interpreted the conversation).
Theres a difference between countering what someone is saying in a confrontational way and the continuous trolling of everyone who posts on a thread with walls of copy and paste data, for months on end. Youre not trolling at all.
Yes, you are right, but what can an individual do, other than make some ethical choices in what they buy and reducing their fossil fuel use where they can?
There is a serious problem of Malaise, feelings of powerlessness, reluctance to make big changes in ones lifestyle, while most other people, or governments dont. In some ways, the problem is just too big, too far away in the future for people to cope with, or grasp the urgency. In many ways, its already too late and were all just running with our eyes shut and our hands over our ears towards a cliff edge like lemmings.
Yes and right wing populists taking advantage of peoples fears, economic and political instability and war mongering are the very worst things we could be doing and yet the worse these things become, the more the populists and oligarchs thrive.
Quoting frank
No; you were pointing the finger and setting it up as an excuse to do nothing and claim innocence. And it's not fine, it's reprehensible, that you are distorting the facts in order to do so.
A country that builds 100 power stations of any kind in short order clearly is a developing nation: your denial is false. Fortunately they are developing so fast as to be already past the heavy industrial revolution and well into the electronic and green revolutions, to the extent that they have overtaken the West.
Yes.
Worth looking at this piece:
Chinas the Engine Driving Nations Away From Fossil Fuels, Report Says
I gifted as a free article for anyone wanting to understand just how significant Chinas actions are.
Mikie's link above.
Oh, the US is the biggest oil and gas producer? Let's look at coal instead. Why do we still have to waste time on this nonsense. We have to phase out all the fossil fuels, and the sooner we do it the less disruptive and catastrophic it will be.
And adaptation is what we also have to do anyway, and the slower we are at stopping making it worse by stopping burning fossil fuels, the more stringent our adaptation will have to be. And none of this is remotely controversial.
How many people actually want mankind to survive?
How many people actually want all the currently living people to die of natural causes?
Is mere survival even a universally desirable goal? Does everyone want it?
How many people are even willing to survive even if that meant a significant lowering of their quality of life?
Efforts to combat climate deterioration are doomed as long as people in general would rather die than merely survive.
Is this supposed to be encouraging? Catastrophic warming is already baked in. By the time China makes a meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use (say half), we'll be well into uncharted territory, and they'll still be pouring GHG's into the air.
Mere? I'm not going to speak for everyone, or most people, or universality. Are you merely asking questions, or are you seriously asking them?
I don't know what to make of this. There are people who at least behave as if they would rather die than live without their car. But for thousands of years, everyone managed without a car. Does that answer anything?
And coal is concerning because when all the other sources are tapped out, coal availability will continue for a few more centuries. The magnitude of climate change is primarily down to what we do with coal. I don't get why China is accelerating coal use now. They could go nuclear instead.
The issue I see is that even if the west were to get its act together and transition off of fossil fuel, China will be off doing their own thing. I'm not saying that couldn't change, it's just hard to picture how.
I think that for successfully taking action against climate deterioration, the above questions, and then some, would need to be openly discussed.
Why blame China?
Why buy cheap Chinese stuff?
Stop buying cheap Chinese stuff, and China will have no reason to burn so much coal anymore, or even none at all, for that matter.
It's not the Chinese who need to change; it's the rest of the world, esp. Westerners, who are eager to look wealthier than they are and so they buy cheap Chinese stuff.
Yes. Remember, thats with rapidly increasing demand. The fact that it decreased at all is significant, and the impact its having elsewhere is likewise significant. I think the article outlines Chinas influence on the rest of the world pretty well.
Quoting RogueAI
True, but every tenth of a degree matters.
Actually, China is in many ways leading the way. Which you would know if you bothered to read anything. But please go on with your outdated slogans.
Quoting frank
They are. Theyre building more reactors than the rest of the world combined. Which you would know if you bothered to read anything.
How China Raced Ahead of the US on Nuclear Power
This level of naval-gazing approaches satire.
Before we turn on the air conditioner, certain fundamental questions must be addressed like whether we all really want to not be sweltering, and if we want to even go on living.
Good thing youre not in charge of anything.
I don't blame them. In many respects they're still a developing country. Developing countries use fossil fuels. They're cheap, easy, and reliable. If I lived in a developing country and the choice was between a wind farm that would provide power to my neighbor and a coal plant that would provide power to my neighbor and me, I know which one I would be telling my government to build.
Quoting baker
People should definitely cut down on all the crap they buy.
Quoting baker
The rich countries should be helping the poorer ones electrify responsibly with renewables, but the rich countries (e.g., America) can't even fund food assistance programs for their own people.
And you wonder why people aren't eager to combat the deterioration of climate!
This is supposedly a philosophy forum ... not Twitter ... ...
Such is capitalist paradise.
Yes, it must be because of unfriendly responses to silly comments on an online forum. Nailed it.
Quoting baker
And theres all kinds of threads to naval gaze on. This one happens to be about climate change and its consequences. But I personally dont care if you raise these questions its just that its laughable in its childishness.
I just posted an article on China care to discuss that? Or is that too hard?
No. They can, of course they can, but they don't want to. The US crisis is deliberately created with malice aforethought. Disaster economics are being used to accumulate wealth in a few hands and the mass of the population is being deliberately impoverished, disempowered, and angered, because they are no longer needed by the rich and powerful. The economy used to run on mass production and mass consumption, but automation and 3d printing makes the mass of people unnecessary. The psychopaths no longer rely on the rest of us for their power. The plan is to get rid of most of the people, and sort out the climate later.
The last mass-production factories will be producing autonomous hunter-killer drones.
You just answered some of my above questions.
Oh? Please elaborate. Which one?
Quoting baker
So what answer did I provide to those questions in my asking about discussing Chinas role in tackling climate change? Like the fact that theyre building as many nuclear reactors as the rest of the world combined, and now sell half of all cars as EVs?
I cant wait for your usual on-topic, detailed reasoning. Because theres no way you just wanted to bring the discussion into the realm of naval-gazing bullshit so as to have some shot at participation, knowing next to nothing about the topic as you do, and being unwilling to read or learn and all. I know it couldnt be that, given your sterling reputation.
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-china/index.html
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-solar-growth-keeps-chinas-co2-falling-in-first-half-of-2025/
What's to discuss? Only the bullshit excuses of the Greedy and Wilfully Ignorant.
Fair enough but its really quite something. Chinas actions are having global effects. EVs, Solar, wind, nuclear being rolled out at incredible speed and being exported to other countries while bringing down costs. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels. Thats remarkable.
With the dopey US abdicating, China will now pull way ahead. Bidens inflation reduction act wasnt going to get us ahead, but now with that repealed theres no chance of catching them. This has consequences beyond climate change it has enormous political consequences too. When they say China is the engine, theyre right.
Jamaicans Have Been Turning to Solar Power. It Paid Off After the Storm (gift article)
A natural progression. China exporting cheap solar panels to an island that wants to ween itself off of imported, polluting fossil fuels. Panels have not only been resilient to extreme weather, but those who have them get their power back much quicker which, as noted, benefits the entire neighborhood.
Progress these last few years has been encouraging:
Still too slow this would have been nice to hear in 1995 but it seems inevitable.
Yes this is the other front we will have fight on. Not just climate change, but bond villains too. Oh and mass migration too, nearly forgot that.
Do forget it, it is a nonsense. Nobody needs to starve in the US because of an influx of migrants until the warming gets really really bad and food is actually running short. People are going hungry and being conned into blaming migrants instead of being grateful for their work in food production, and blaming Trump and project 2025.
I think its incredible. Apparently if your roof survives, and theyre built to code, then theyll likely survive as well. Some people even remove them before a big storm and then put them back, which is also cool.
Tehran might be the first megacity to become uninhabitable.
https://www.intellinews.com/day-zero-aproaches-tehran-as-water-reserves-drop-below-5-410347/?source=Iran
The risk of drought is not much reported, but will probably be the first mass catastrophic result for humans. Millions of people and the taps run dry. But never mind, they're foreigners. There are many other cities at risk from drought, as well as those from sea level rise of course.
10 Years After a Breakthrough Climate Pact, Heres Where We Are
#7 is somewhat misleading. The chart shows LNG production, with USA leading the pack. LNG currently accounts for about 11% of gas production worldwide, although its share is projected to increase to 18% by 2030, mainly thanks to the US.
It's a sorry state of affairs, but then, climate change politics have wrecked many a career in Australia. The conservative parties have been decimated by the upsurge of so-called 'Teal Independents', mainly women, 'teal' because they tend to coalesce around Liberal (Blue) principles but stand up for green values (hence blue-green.) Many of the safest liberal seats in the country were taken by them, who now number 10 in the national Parliament, where Prime Miinister's Albanese's Labor has a massive majority. Commentators generally believe that the conservative abandonment of net zero will further weaken the coalition who currently only hold 43 out of 150 parliamentary seats (Labor holds 94).
As for how Australia is going in the race to decarbonize - still a massive amount to be done, but household rooftop solar and installed batteries are becoming a big factor. Still gaps, though, that are going to have to be filled by natural gas-powered electricity.
The only serious threat from climate change--and it is serious--is unpredictable weather cycles that disrupt farming. Other than that there will be bumps in the road not a a collapse of civilisation.
Or to put it another way, despite 40 years of warnings and analysis and many developments of alternative energy sources, we haven't even stopped increasing the rate at which we are make things worse, never mind starting to decrease it. We are still getting further away from net zero, and at the same time and in addition, carbon sinks are collapsing, and becoming carbon sources.
And of course even reaching net zero, if we live long enough to start heading that way, will not stop climate change for many centuries afterwards.
I'm curious how you came to that conclusion? It seems to there's to much uncertainty of what all the consequence could to be to make such definite statements with any confidence.
I think the effects of climate change on bio-diversity for instance might be a very serious problem going forward, not just for the loss of the intrinsic value we might attribute to it, but as something that civilisation tacitly relies on.
I've just learnt over time that when it comes to scientific analysis in the public sphere it is always hyperbolic. When it comes to actual human atrocities on other humans it is usually underplayed.
Quoting I like sushi
It is serious, but I can see solutions to that... there's ways to adapt and produce even more, in more resilient and sustainable ways.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes as long as you have enough of it left, it could recover quite quick. But biospheres rely on enough bio-diversity as a kind of network to keep itself going. If you go below certain thresholds of bio-diversity the whole network could collapse, and then we're talking millions of years to recover.
We have no food. You have food > War. Planning ahead would be nice and there are schemes in place already to try and diversify. I doubt it woudl be truly global tbh, but I can see some nations losing out if farming became unpredictable for several staple crops in just one season.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
This is hyperbole.
Yes some countries rely on imports for a lot of their needs already, and it is hard to see how some places would still be viable for agriculture if we get another couple of degrees of warming and more irregular weather.
Quoting I like sushi
It's not hyperbole, but a possibility... I don't know what the chances are, but the speed at which we are changing the climate, together with other factors of course (like just taking over ecosystems for ourselves), could result in the kind of mass-extinction that would take millions of years to recover from. Maybe it wouldn't take millions of years to have something good enough for civilisation to be viable, but it would take a while let's say.
Anyway the more important point is I think that we really don't know what the consequences will be. We have crude models that point to a couple degrees of warming, but how certain changes (like say the amoc-collapse, burning down of forests, loss of ice-caps, acidification of the oceans etc etc) will amplify changes or not, is unclear I think.
Well Im not in a position to argue with that. The unpredictability is off the chart, all we have is modelling and a long list of factors which will to a greater or lesser degree increase CO2 levels. There are some things which we can be certain of and there is a baked in reluctance in humanity to not make the necessary changes. To bury our heads in the sand and just carry on as before.
We know for a fact that there are tipping points which will accelerate the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, on top of what we add ourselves. Such as methane from the permafrost, which is melting as we speak. Or acidification of the oceans which will reduce the amount of carbon captured in the oceans, a major carbon sink. We know that sea levels are rising, its a slow process, I know (about 3mm a year at the moment), but something which could accelerate and certainly cant be stopped. It can rise by 90 metres meaning that the majority of larger cities will by then be under water.
Then there is the stupidity of humanity, getting involved in more wars and producing more and more failed states. This might wipe us out before the famine etc does.
No. You dont know what youre talking about.
There are several serious threats which, if you cared to learn about, you would understand. The loss of biodiversity is serious, hardly hyperbole (as if youre an authority on that), and has been extensively researched and documented. Among many others.
Why people continue to make such ignorant comments is beyond me. I doubt youd see it in a physics or chemistry thread. Yet here we are.
A mass extinction is an event in which there's a breakdown in a biosphere's ability to support life. I don't think there is any reason to believe that kind of event is likely due to global warming.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
There should be a large spike in the global temperatures that will last for a couple of thousand years, then a long ramp down as the CO2 is absorbed into the oceans. Civilization has never faced that kind of volatility. I'm guessing that cultures that remain high-tech will adapt and ride it out. I could see some areas regressing culturally. In other words, I don't think the human species is going to go through this as a global community. The present global scene might disappear.
Youre absolutely right.
A ten second Google search:
What were doing to insects in particular is striking. Its not all due to climate change, of course but its a very serious issue that is exacerbated by it.
But its best to listen to Internet trolls when they tell you not to worry. Their vibes have never been wrong.
I think this. But the failure of climate models to-date (and Antarctic ice recession) gives me hope.
Common climate denial arguments: models are unreliable.
Climate science, like other sciences, really separate out very quickly those who have done their homework and those who havent. You just cant bullshit your way through physics like you can freshman philosophy. Likewise, going with ones feelings about climate models, climate impacts, the causes of global warming, etc., just doesnt cut it. There actually are right answers to these questions.
A lot of really bad things can happen, short of civilizational collapse. For example, Bangladesh faces exceptionally severe consequences from climate change due to its unfortunate combination of geography and high population density. This densely-populated nation is predominantly a low-lying delta, making it acutely susceptible to sea-level rise, which threatens to permanently inundate vast coastal areas and push saline water inland, contaminating freshwater and soil. Exacerbating this risk is its location on the Bay of Bengal, a "funnel" that intensifies tropical cyclones, leading to catastrophic storm surges and increasing the frequency of devastating riverine flooding. This environmental fragility is amplified by the country's immense population density, where millions of people are dependent on climate-sensitive livelihoods like agriculture and fishing. Consequently, climate impacts directly translate into massive food and water insecurity, large-scale displacement, and mounting humanitarian and economic crises, making Bangladesh one of the most climate-vulnerable nations globally.
Already, the unfortunate Rohinga refugees, largely displaced from their homelands in Bengal, subsist by their thousands in miserable squalor on the fringes of Myanmar, wracked by civil war. So what happens if another 30 or 40 million Bangladeshis are displaced by these catastrophes in an adjacent region?
It may not be global civllisational collapse, but for those millions involved, it might as well be.
Quoting I like sushi
Someone followed up with an example of such hyperbole.
My original point was that the main concern I have is with predictable weather causing huge disruptions to food supplies and widespread famine > and the other horsemen too if severe enough.
It all started with this:
Quoting Punshhh
Which is hyperbole.
FIN bye
If you can so readily admit that you are wiser than most people most of the time (possibly myself included). It is tough thing to question one's views and understand that they are in part driven by beliefs rather than any substantial evidence-based reasoning.
Human stupidity has its advantages though :) Sometimes we accidently do something extraordinarily amazing that no person of reasonable intelligence woudl ever have tried in the first place! :D
I was joking with Unenlightened, when I wrote that. He was spreading doom, in a light hearted way, as is his want.
It is a real possibility though, joking aside.
This article explains why a 1.5 degrees rise in global temperatures could result in wet bulb temperatures above human habitation requirements.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2270357-keep-warming-under-1-5c-to-stop-tropics-becoming-too-hot-to-live/
On current forecasts (a simple calculation using projected CO2 levels), we are heading for 2.5 degrees, or higher. In which case the tropics will become uninhabitable.
Quoting frank
It's not only about the ability to support life in a general sense, and it's not only about global warming. It's the rate of change that will cause a lot of species to die on top of those that are already gone and will go because of other factors. If it will qualify as a mass extinction will depend partly on how you define that and on how bad it will get... But even in a moderate case scenario, a lot of life will be gone for a long time, so we will have to live in an impoverished biosphere for the foreseeable future which is bad enough already.
Quoting frank
Who knows right? The big wildcard is human agency itself, how will the global system deal will all these added tensions is kinda anybody's guess.
What failure are you pointing to exactly? Aren't they generally a bit conservative in their estimates in that they don't really account for the complexity of feedbacks and such (which seem more likely to be positive than negative)?
Nothing wrong with speculating about all manner of things. There is something intrinsically wrong with pushing an agenda when the facts do not align with the data though. I cannot read the article so no idea what it says or what it concludes. I like the New Scientist because it does cover some more niche ideas so I hope they did a decent job of it?
Yes this is I think one of the most underestimated risks we face. People seems largely uninformed on this particular issue and kindof assume we stand apart from nature and will be able to insulate ourselves from it's deterioration... but that seems very optimistic to me.
There is also concern about the opposite issue: data from orbiting satellites indicates that the earth is getting greener, probably due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans don't do well in the kind of hot, humid conditions that will prevail in some areas, and that's because of microorganisms and parasites. I think it's actually easier to live in semi-desert conditions than in a jungle. I live in an area where parasites are becoming more of a problem because they don't die out in the winter anymore.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
True. My guess is breakdown of the global system we have now. But you're right. We don't know.
The greening effect is interesting, I'm not sure how it interacts and combines with all the other changes, but it certainly is a factor.
There is also a nice breakdown of the propaganda we are being fed; see how much you can recognise and how much you have unwittingly absorbed.
That is so true. :grin:
Its crackpot pseudoscience spread by climate change deniers. Even if there is some effect, it will be small compared to the increases in CO2 by human activity. But what isnt acknowledged in such claims is that this greening is of no use to the ecology of the places where it can be observed. Those ecosystems will continue to collapse due to the existing man made pressures regardless.
It does seem to be one of the more serious potential problems thrown up by climate modelling. That parts of the world may become uninhabitable, both for communities living there and the ability to grow crops. On top of the trend which we can see already of climate instability making it harder to grow crops in many regions.