Climate Change(d)?

[Angra Mainyu]

It is pure ignorance. I will leave to Angra to do his won homework and find out where the O2 he breathes comes from, along with rhe ocean's part in the carbon cycle.

You appear to be changing the subject. You earlier said:

The loss the ocean nurseries erpresented by the loss of coral reefs affects all life in the ocean. The ocean dies and we die.

I replied, and now you seem to have changed to oxygen depletion. Fair enough, that that would be a much more serious threat - though it is not what you had brought up before.

So, on that note, do you have a specific model you'd like me to address?

I did find a pretty catastrophic one. However:

1. The global oxygen depletion model in question seems to require a level of global warming very improbable for a very long time, which allows for much more advanced responses (see below).

2. I would have to take a closer look (no time at the moment), but from what I can tell, the model is not meant to be realistic and is not considering how species that produce oxygen can adapt to warmer temperatures.

3. The model certainly does not consider potential interventions by means of genetically modified organisms that produce oxygen, which become an option given the amount of time required for collapse.

Anyway, perhaps you had a different model in mind, so do you have a link to one you'd like me to address?

 

[steve_bank]

The oceans can die. The waters off the mouth of the Mississippi are dead from agricultural runoff. Coral is dying.

Sit quietly, take a deep breath, an exhale. Image it going into trees, plants, and plankton.

Inhale imaging it coming from trees, plants, ad plankton.

As to Canada becoming more fertile, you have to understand the carbon cycle. Carbon is locked in frozen tundra. As it melts it goes back to the atmosphere potentially creating a greenhouse runaway.

Evolution and slow geophysical processes have created a complex interconnected ecosystem.

Don't know f homeostatis is the best word. Akll things in nature exist in a dynamic feedback loop that maintains a status quo.n
Food goes up, prey grow predators grow. Food declines, prey declines, predator declines. A natural cycle mantains a balance.

We are not isolated from the oceans or the greater ecosystem. Oceans provide a major source of food. It is finite. China has fired at P boats over control of fishing grounds. The PI ran a ship on a reef declaring it PI territory.

Norway raised a flag on a rock in the Atlantic and maintains a human prescience to establish ownership of the waters.


It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources.

 

[bilby]

It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources.

What rock have you been living under?

Humans have been, still are, and likely will continue to war over resources since before they were fully modern Homo Sapiens.

Predicting a future war over resources is almost as impressive as predicting that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

It not only WILL be today AND tomorrow; It was yesterday, and yesterday, and all our yesterdays.

Nonetheless, we still managed to not just survive, but thrive.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The oceans can die. The waters off the mouth of the Mississippi are dead from agricultural runoff. Coral is dying.

You need more precision. Some coral may be dying, but dead coral isn't going to result in global oxygen depletion. You'd need more than that.
You said before that numbers talk. I agree, so I will ask you to give me a link to a paper where the matter is addressed, and I'm willing to address it if you like.

Sit quietly, take a deep breath, an exhale. Image it going into trees, plants, and plankton.

Inhale imaging it coming from trees, plants, ad plankton.

As to Canada becoming more fertile, you have to understand the carbon cycle. Carbon is locked in frozen tundra. As it melts it goes back to the atmosphere potentially creating a greenhouse runaway.

"Potentially" and "greenhouse runaway" need more precision; we're not going to be Venus. There are models that estimate how much warming we will get, with worst case scenarios, best case scenarios, more probable scenarios, and so on. I know it's bad, but some countries likely will get better climate - better for humans, that is - less cold, more warm.

Evolution and slow geophysical processes have created a complex interconnected ecosystem.

Don't know f homeostatis is the best word. Akll things in nature exist in a dynamic feedback loop that maintains a status quo.n
Food goes up, prey grow predators grow. Food declines, prey declines, predator declines. A natural cycle mantains a balance.

True, but humans are capable of surviving on a wide variety of foods, in vastly different climates, etc. We're very difficult to kill off.

We are not isolated from the oceans or the greater ecosystem. Oceans provide a major source of food. It is finite. China has fired at P boats over control of fishing grounds. The PI ran a ship on a reef declaring it PI territory.

Norway raised a flag on a rock in the Atlantic and maintains a human prescience to establish ownership of the waters.

Sure, but none of that is an extinction risk.

It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources.

There are wars over resources. There's always been wars over resources. There will be wars over resources. This does not require global warming, though the latter can make it worse.
Even so, how would you expect that to lead to extinction? Who would be firing enough nukes to do that? The leaders of countries with the capability to do that generally are not insane enough to do it. They are not suicidal. They do not want to see their countries obliterated, they and their families killed. While not impossible, this scenario is pretty improbable.

 

[bilby]

The oceans can die. The waters off the mouth of the Mississippi are dead from agricultural runoff. Coral is dying.

You need more precision. Some coral may be dying, but dead coral isn't going to result in global oxygen depletion. You'd need more than that.
You said before that numbers talk. I agree, so I will ask you to give me a link to a paper where the matter is addressed, and I'm willing to address it if you like.

Sit quietly, take a deep breath, an exhale. Image it going into trees, plants, and plankton.

Inhale imaging it coming from trees, plants, ad plankton.

As to Canada becoming more fertile, you have to understand the carbon cycle. Carbon is locked in frozen tundra. As it melts it goes back to the atmosphere potentially creating a greenhouse runaway.

"Potentially" and "greenhouse runaway" need more precision; we're not going to be Venus. There are models that estimate how much warming we will get, with worst case scenarios, best case scenarios, more probable scenarios, and so on. I know it's bad, but some countries likely will get better climate - better for humans, that is - less cold, more warm.

Evolution and slow geophysical processes have created a complex interconnected ecosystem.

Don't know f homeostatis is the best word. Akll things in nature exist in a dynamic feedback loop that maintains a status quo.n
Food goes up, prey grow predators grow. Food declines, prey declines, predator declines. A natural cycle mantains a balance.

True, but humans are capable of surviving on a wide variety of foods, in vastly different climates, etc. We're very difficult to kill off.

We are not isolated from the oceans or the greater ecosystem. Oceans provide a major source of food. It is finite. China has fired at P boats over control of fishing grounds. The PI ran a ship on a reef declaring it PI territory.

Norway raised a flag on a rock in the Atlantic and maintains a human prescience to establish ownership of the waters.

Sure, but none of that is an extinction risk.

It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources.

There are wars over resources. There's always been wars over resources. There will be wars over resources. This does not require global warming, though the latter can make it worse.
Even so, how would you expect that to lead to extinction? Who would be firing enough nukes to do that? The leaders of countries with the capability to do that generally are not insane enough to do it. They are not suicidal. They do not want to see their countries obliterated, they and their families killed. While not impossible, this scenario is pretty improbable.

I suspect that we are seeing middle class white American privilege at work here.

When they say "It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources", what I hear is "It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources that directly impacts people I care about".

 

[fromderinside]

I believe it was around 1177 B.C. that the western world proved human societies were dependent on resources and very self-centered. It was then that ransacking boat people destroyed civilization during a multi-century prolonged drought in the fertile crescent with little resistance. It was also the beginning of the iron age.

 

[steve_bank]

Yea, the human patterns of today were set at the beginner of civilization.

I read something about Greeks or Romans harvesting a a marine critter to exhaustion for its dye, purple I think.

In the words of Alfred E Newman 'What, me worry?'. The picture is copyrighted and can't be posted.

what me worry - Google Search

www.google.com

I have no idea what Angra's point us. Climate chnange is upon us and us having an observable effect of food in areas and weather.


I know how simulations are done mathematically. Climate is chaotic, meaning small changes in the initial conditions of variables cause wide divergence as the simulation runs. Chaotic systems are a demonstrated physical effect. Over time the models will improve as data grows. Different hurricane models predict different storm paths. Exactly where it hits land is not predicable and that is on a very small scale over a period of weeks with models constantly updated with real time data.

Right now it is fairly clear temperature is ricing, weather is changing, and some areas are more affected than others.

Predicting what Canada will be like 100-200-300 years from now with any certainty IMO is not possible. Too many variables. that can not be quatified to sufficient acuracy. The America prediced yeras back that we wil cease to be net food exporter for a number of reasons one of which is climate change. California, the Southwest, and Midwest s already in trouble with water even without drought.

There is also non linear effects. Thresholds can be reached as trigger points.

My experince wit systems makes it easy for ne to see the ecosystem as a complex ystem with mass, energy, and causality IOW thermodynamics.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I have no idea what Angra's point us. Climate chnange is upon us and us having an observable effect of food in areas and weather.

My points are what I said in my posts, but if you have no idea of what they are, I do not think I can clarify the matter. If you tell me you don't understand this or that, sure I can try to clarify, but no idea is too vague.

And yes, climate change is real and having observable effects. No argument there.

I know how simulations are done mathematically. Climate is chaotic, meaning small changes in the initial conditions of variables cause wide divergence as the simulation runs. Chaotic systems are a demonstrated physical effect. Over time the models will improve as data grows. Different hurricane models predict different storm paths. Exactly where it hits land is not predicable and that is on a very small scale over a period of weeks with models constantly updated with real time data.

That's true, but we can however make reasonable predictions of temperatures within certain ranges, as well as other effects, by means of models in some cases (climate), or by looking at other patterns (e.g., we know human tech is getting better).

Right now it is fairly clear temperature is ricing, weather is changing, and some areas are more affected than others.

True.

Predicting what Canada will be like 100-200-300 years from now with any certainty IMO is not possible. Too many variables. that can not be quatified to sufficient acuracy.

A couple of points:

1. I wasn't looking that far into the future. I reckon that very probably before 200 years (and maybe even 100) there will be an AGI (or several, but let's simplify) that can engage in vastly superhuman geoengineering among other things like building new cities, transport people in large numbers, genetic engineering on a massive scale, etc. Unless the AI goes Skynet on humans - in which case, climate change doesn't matter from that point on, since the AI will just exterminate humans very efficiently -, it will deal with climate change as needed - and if there is no time, it will build the necessary tech to go on, and then deal with it.

2. I was making an assessment in a shorter period, and I was not going for accuracy as in number of degrees warmer, but just the general direction we can tell. Climate in Canada (and much of the world) is not good for humans. We adapt thanks to our tech, but otherwise it's overly cold. We can predict it will be warmer, and very likely will still have plenty of water, which seems to be a good improvement. Now, if we cannot count the places that will get better due to the inherent inaccuracy of our models, how come we can predict that things will be overall worse, or that it will be pretty bad in some places? After all, the models used to predict how bad things will get are also the models we can use to predict that some places will get better. In neither case we can have precise numbers, but we can still make reasonable assessments within certain ranges.

 

[Swammerdami]

Some of the discussion is anthrocentric: Species extinctions are of no concern unless that species is useful to humans. Others feel that with power comes responsibility: If humans exercise great control over the planet they have the duty to exercise good stewardship. Humans might be extinct in a few million years; should they worry about what sort of planet they leave behind for whatever creatures survive?

On the argument that climate change may be a "wash," that farming land lost in the tropics will be replaced with new farmlands in Canada and Siberia, there are some points being ignored:

• Extreme weather events are increasing all over the world. Blizzards, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and floods will increase in intensity: Canada's warmer climate will not be an unmixed blessing. Wildfires are also projected to increase.
• As the Amazon basin turns arid, the Earth's total vegetation will fall regardless of new growth. The Amazon is an important carbon sink: its 123 billion tons of carbon is about ten times the total carbon in the atmosphere.
• Loss of biodiversity is a serious issue for some thinkers.
• Ocean levels will rise.
• Climate change will be disruptive.

Nigeria and Bangladesh — two countries which will NOT be as "lucky" as Canada when temperatures rise — have a combined population of 383 million people. Do the Pollyannas anticipate airlifting these millions to Canada? Expect much human misery and geopolitical disruption as climate change unfolds.

I wasn't too concerned about sea levels until a very recent report about a melting in Antarctica suggests that levels might rise by as much as 3 meters before mid-century! Big ocean level changes have been common (and relatively unimportant) over the aeons but today there are many large cities located near sea-coasts. More disruption. (And there are low-lying lands not near sea-coasts. Is it common knowledge that California's Sacramento has a lower average elevation than San Francisco? Are there any plans to build a dam across the Carquinez Strait? Would such a project even be possible?)

Some in the thread snap their fingers and say humans are clever and will find ways to surmount all difficulties. I have a less sanguine view of mankind's achievements.

 

[bilby]

Humans are clever, and will find ways to surmount all difficulties.

Indeed, as far as Climate Change is concerned, we largely have found ways to surmount most of oir difficultes.

But humans are dumb, and will find ways to reject all solutions.

Shit, they even oppose the most effective way of generating reliable, clean power, on the grounds that they are worried that it's not safe - despite it having a sixty year track history that shows it to be at least five orders of magnitude less deadly than the dirty technologies it should be replacing.

If you suggest closing a fossil fuel plant and replacing it with nuclear, people say "But Chernobyl!", ignoring the fact that you would need a Chernobyl every single week for nuclear power accidents to kill as many people as coal kills.

 

[steve_bank]

Back in the 90s when I was in the Idaho Panhandle California floated a plan to dam a valley and run the water down to California.

 

[steve_bank]

I have no idea what Angra's point us. Climate chnange is upon us and us having an observable effect of food in areas and weather.

My points are what I said in my posts, but if you have no idea of what they are, I do not think I can clarify the matter. If you tell me you don't understand this or that, sure I can try to clarify, but no idea is too vague.

And yes, climate change is real and having observable effects. No argument there.

I know how simulations are done mathematically. Climate is chaotic, meaning small changes in the initial conditions of variables cause wide divergence as the simulation runs. Chaotic systems are a demonstrated physical effect. Over time the models will improve as data grows. Different hurricane models predict different storm paths. Exactly where it hits land is not predicable and that is on a very small scale over a period of weeks with models constantly updated with real time data.

That's true, but we can however make reasonable predictions of temperatures within certain ranges, as well as other effects, by means of models in some cases (climate), or by looking at other patterns (e.g., we know human tech is getting better).

Right now it is fairly clear temperature is ricing, weather is changing, and some areas are more affected than others.

True.

Predicting what Canada will be like 100-200-300 years from now with any certainty IMO is not possible. Too many variables. that can not be quatified to sufficient acuracy.

A couple of points:

1. I wasn't looking that far into the future. I reckon that very probably before 200 years (and maybe even 100) there will be an AGI (or several, but let's simplify) that can engage in vastly superhuman geoengineering among other things like building new cities, transport people in large numbers, genetic engineering on a massive scale, etc. Unless the AI goes Skynet on humans - in which case, climate change doesn't matter from that point on, since the AI will just exterminate humans very efficiently -, it will deal with climate change as needed - and if there is no time, it will build the necessary tech to go on, and then deal with it.

2. I was making an assessment in a shorter period, and I was not going for accuracy as in number of degrees warmer, but just the general direction we can tell. Climate in Canada (and much of the world) is not good for humans. We adapt thanks to our tech, but otherwise it's overly cold. We can predict it will be warmer, and very likely will still have plenty of water, which seems to be a good improvement. Now, if we cannot count the places that will get better due to the inherent inaccuracy of our models, how come we can predict that things will be overall worse, or that it will be pretty bad in some places? After all, the models used to predict how bad things will get are also the models we can use to predict that some places will get better. In neither case we can have precise numbers, but we can still make reasonable assessments within certain ranges.

Didn't you say there will be winners and losers, Canada warming being a winner, or something like that?

The idea that there will be winners and losers among humans with climate change is as I said up there with those crazy conservatories. As Secretary of State Pompeio said if the Arctic is thawing let's exploit it.

The global economy as it is today s not sustainable even without climate change. Humnas have a hard time planning for the future and for resiliency.

There are no contingencies for disruptions. The pandemic showed how fragile our food supply chain is. Something obvious like a planned and tested national response to a pandemic including drug companies. Even given what is happening now such planning will never happen.

On the west coast peoe continue to build in drought stricken waht as once remote forests, and complain when their house burns down. A power line spark may have caucused a fire and blame is focused, but people stupidly build in fire prone areas without any consideration for the risks.

Climate change is the culmination of human greed and lack of foresight. Evolution gave us the ability to create technology, but not the ability to use it wisely. We are failing the Darwin Test.

Unless someone wants to argue humans do not act against their own best interests interests?

Staring with the American Civil War there was a rapid development of weapons leading to the machine gun, chemical weapons, and long range artillery in WWI.

In WWII there was competition over who would get nuclear weapons first. Intense competition over a superior fighter plane. That human invention and creativity for you. Climate change is the product of that invention and creativity.

I know. I wored for Lockheed in the 80s and worked for Intel among other places producng 'stuff' for consumption. Creatvity supported by a budget can be intoxicating, it is a high.

 

[bilby]

We are failing the Darwin Test

Humans are passing the Darwin test with flying colours. They're numerous, and have expanded into almost every land environment on the planet.

I don't think you understand what evolutionary success looks like. It looks exactly like what H. Sapiens has done over the last few thousand years.

Your unfounded paranoia about our imminent extinction is foolish and counterfactual; But not surprising. One of the keystones of humanity's success has been our telling of stories, and "The world is going to end, and all the fools who didn't do as I told them will suffer" has always been one of the most popular of those stories.

Particularly amongst old men.

Their world is going to end soon, because immortality isn't a thing. Everyone else's will be OK. Things have been getting better for the last five hundred years, and that trend has been accelerating continuously.

We have faced existential threats and defeated them with technology repeatedly. We have the technology to defeat this one too - the only question is how bad it will need to get before conservatives recognise the need for change, and allow us to implement the solutions we have.

It could get very bad indeed; But it cannot get 'extinction of the species' bad. Once bad things start happening to wealthy conservative old white people, things will change.

It would be nice if they changed before we got to that point. But they don't recognise threats that only affect other people - they are so oblivious to such threats that they say stuff like "It will not be today or tomorrow, eventually it will be war over resources", when the slightest grasp of reality would have left no doubt that it IS today - just not in their back yard.

 

[Politesse]

Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.

 

[bilby]

Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.

No, it's not.

But someone who is claiming that humanity is shortly going to go extinct due to their own actions is wrong, even if there are other bad consequences of our actions.

 

[Politesse]

Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.

No, it's not.

But someone who is claiming that humanity is shortly going to go extinct due to their own actions is wrong, even if there are other bad consequences of our actions.

Surely a bit hyperbolic? I can't imagine anyone thinks that there will be no humans at all left in the near future. The concern would be more for situations like, say, the mass starvation of billions.

 

[bilby]

Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.

No, it's not.

But someone who is claiming that humanity is shortly going to go extinct due to their own actions is wrong, even if there are other bad consequences of our actions.

Surely a bit hyperbolic? I can't imagine anyone thinks that there will be no humans at all left in the near future. The concern would be more for situations like, say, the mass starvation of billions.

Well 'The Darwin Test' certainly implies extinction to me.

Perhaps it's hyperbole, perhaps not; I can only know what people actually post, not what they are thinking when posting.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.

No, it's not.

But someone who is claiming that humanity is shortly going to go extinct due to their own actions is wrong, even if there are other bad consequences of our actions.

Surely a bit hyperbolic? I can't imagine anyone thinks that there will be no humans at all left in the near future. The concern would be more for situations like, say, the mass starvation of billions.

It doesn't look hyperbolic to me (see my exchange with steve for details). And you do not want to imagine it, by the way. It's easy to find plenty of humans who believe there will be no humans left in the future. For example:


1. Rapturists and other apocalyptic Christians (or Muslims or Jews perhaps).
2. Climate change activists who believe it's an extinction level threat.
3. Experts in AI and philosophers who believe AI will likely kill humans off.


1. is ridiculously false.

2. is false too; the best argument I've seen is the oxygen depletion thing because at least it offers a mechanism that could do it, but it fails for a number of reasons, and I could debate the details if you like.

3. I do not know how to deal with this one, though. I would say it's improbable, but cannot rule it out; there are failure modes that seem to do just that. But we're not debating that one here.


In any case, you can easily find plenty of people in the above categories.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Some of the discussion is anthrocentric: Species extinctions are of no concern unless that species is useful to humans.

Of no concern to whom? In any event, I have not read any posts in this thread suggesting anything like that.

I have however considered, when replying to a claim of human extinction, that many species can become extinct without causing any significant risk of human extinction. So, they are of no concern for the purposes of the question of whether humans will become extinct due to climate change.

On the argument that climate change may be a "wash," that farming land lost in the tropics will be replaced with new farmlands in Canada and Siberia, there are some points being ignored:

I have not read any posts in this thread suggesting anything like that - i.e. , that it may be a "wash" for that particular reason. Since I brought up Canada and Russia, let me point out that I have considered that some areas will probably become more suitable for human life than they are today (overall; nothing is perfect), and that there appears to be no good reason why they could not sustain a population of billions - that was in reply to a claim about the planet's not being able to sustain billions of humans.

This is not to say that climate change is not disastrous. The disasters will not come in the form of rendering the planet unable to sustain billions of humans - given available tech -, but in the amount of death and suffering along the way.

Nigeria and Bangladesh — two countries which will NOT be as "lucky" as Canada when temperatures rise — have a combined population of 383 million people. Do the Pollyannas anticipate airlifting these millions to Canada? Expect much human misery and geopolitical disruption as climate change unfolds.

I am not sure who the Pollyannas are. As I've been saying, I do expect much human suffering and death as climate change unfolds. It's a disaster that could have been mitigated to a large extent. However, the anti-nuclear lobby seems too strong to be defeated, in the West at least, and in some other democracies.

Some in the thread snap their fingers and say humans are clever and will find ways to surmount all difficulties. I have a less sanguine view of mankind's achievements.

Could you identify at least two of the "some in the thread", so that I know which posts you have in mind?

Personally, as I said in previous posts, I do not claim that humans will find ways to surmount all difficulties. For example,

1. The difficulty presented by anti-nuclear activists is probably insurmountable. Sure, anti-nuclear activists can find a way to surmount it: they can make a choice to stop being anti-nuclear activists (more precisely, each of them - or of a sufficiently large subset - would have to make that choice individually). But chances are in most cases that's not happening.

2. Some of the difficulties resulting from climate change seem to be so as well, as we are too late to stop them - e.g., extreme weather events kill and will kill and injure many people.

Even so, none of the above difficulties, even if insurmountable, are the sort of difficulties that would realistically result in human extinction. I have not made similar claims about the difficulty presented by rogue AGI, though. In fact, if the first AGI went against humans, I would expect human extermination, so the question would be the probability of the first AGI going rogue. I think extinction by rogue AI is improbable, but I do not have enough expertise to make a strong assessment, and I make no claims that humans will survive it. But that's not the matter of the thread, so I wasn't focusing on that one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is mere survival our only relevant concern? I don't think people aree nearly as worried about non-existence as they are of living while greatly suffering. At least, I am not.

No, it's not.

But someone who is claiming that humanity is shortly going to go extinct due to their own actions is wrong, even if there are other bad consequences of our actions.

Disagree--in terms of direct actions extinction is unlikely. However, humans have quite an ability to locate where there might be distant resources and fight over them. Population crashes in nature aren't extinction events because while a local population may be wiped out others in more favorable locations will still survive.

However, humans have two big problems in this sort of scenario:

1) The humans in the area that can't survive won't just starve, they will attempt to go to the more favorable areas and take resources. We have already seen that humans can strip an area to the point nobody can survive.

2) Humans rely heavily on the slow production of resources--farming. In an area well beyond it's carrying capacity the takers will end up killing the producers--by the time the population is down to it's carrying capacity there will be only very unskilled producers and thus the carrying capacity is far lower. Such resource production also takes longer than the survival time without food--you can't farm without having a store of food to live on while you're doing it. That food gets eaten, everyone starves before the crops come in.