The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[Loren Pechtel]

Didn't Professor Stephen Hawkins predict that we had around 100 years to find another planet humanity could move to or perish? Of course remembering that extinction of life forms on Earth is the rule not the exception!

Well, the next 60 years or so will be the big test of our ingenuity and ability to adapt.

Unless we abandon the folly of extractive capitalist economic growth to infinity, there will be nothing to adapt to, the antidote will come and the earth will heal itself over time. Turns out "the primitives" were right all along and we were to arrogant to listen.

And who decides which 99.9999% of the population is to die?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No one on this board has anywhere near the understanding of climate they think they do... it is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Hell, even climatologists don't understand climate as well as those on this board think they do. CO2 is not the soul determinate of global temperatures and climate. Actual climatologists are well aware of this but the propaganda machine pretends it does. CO2 at five times current concentration levels (>2000ppm) would not create a climate too hot for life - we know this because the Triassic period had CO2 levels greater than 2000ppm and life was abundant. Earlier periods had CO2 levels several times higher than that and life was abundant.

This doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about humanity's effect on our ecosystem, we certainly should. However it is folly to panic over political doomsday propaganda. Every weather phenomena we don't like is not evidence of the "destruction of the planet by man".

The Triassic also had a sun that wasn't putting out as much energy as ours.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless we abandon the folly of extractive capitalist economic growth to infinity, there will be nothing to adapt to, the antidote will come and the earth will heal itself over time. Turns out "the primitives" were right all along and we were to arrogant to listen.

Yes, basically. No doubt that there is a nice balance to be found between living simple rural lifestyles and technological development, but the mind set of business as usual doesn't look like going away any time soon.

Scientific research and discovery probably has no limit to growth, the issue is how this knowledge is used.

Continuing down the path of consumerism doesn't help us a bit.

There is no balance to be struck because it's a fantasy.

1) We don't have enough useable land for a simple rural lifestyle for everyone. (Remember, a simple rural lifestyle means no substantial water projects. If you don't have streams nearby during the entire growing season, forget it.)

2) A simple rural lifestyle for everyone won't support the extractive industries that are needed to sustain it.

 

[DBT]

Unless we abandon the folly of extractive capitalist economic growth to infinity, there will be nothing to adapt to, the antidote will come and the earth will heal itself over time. Turns out "the primitives" were right all along and we were to arrogant to listen.

Yes, basically. No doubt that there is a nice balance to be found between living simple rural lifestyles and technological development, but the mind set of business as usual doesn't look like going away any time soon.

Scientific research and discovery probably has no limit to growth, the issue is how this knowledge is used.

Continuing down the path of consumerism doesn't help us a bit.

There is no balance to be struck because it's a fantasy.

1) We don't have enough useable land for a simple rural lifestyle for everyone. (Remember, a simple rural lifestyle means no substantial water projects. If you don't have streams nearby during the entire growing season, forget it.)

2) A simple rural lifestyle for everyone won't support the extractive industries that are needed to sustain it.

Given how far we have come in terms of Urbanization, Economic growth/Capitalism and consumerism, it isn't possible to stop or turn back the clock. Or except for a very small percentage, live simple rural lifestyles.

It looks like it'll be business as usual until something comes along to force a change. What form that change takes when it is forced upon us by conditions that don't allow business as usual is anyone's guess.

 

[bilby]

There is no balance to be struck because it's a fantasy.

1) We don't have enough useable land for a simple rural lifestyle for everyone. (Remember, a simple rural lifestyle means no substantial water projects. If you don't have streams nearby during the entire growing season, forget it.)

2) A simple rural lifestyle for everyone won't support the extractive industries that are needed to sustain it.

Given how far we have come in terms of Urbanization, Economic growth/Capitalism and consumerism, it isn't possible to stop or turn back the clock. Or except for a very small percentage, live simple rural lifestyles.

It looks like it'll be business as usual until something comes along to force a change. What form that change takes when it is forced upon us by conditions that don't allow business as usual is anyone's guess.

Urbanisation is extremely good for the environment, and is very popular indeed with most of humanity. Why anyone would object to it as a voluntary trend I do not understand.

I mean, I understand why a handful of people might prefer not to live in cities; But I have no clue why anyone would object to other people doing so.

 

[DBT]

There is no balance to be struck because it's a fantasy.

1) We don't have enough useable land for a simple rural lifestyle for everyone. (Remember, a simple rural lifestyle means no substantial water projects. If you don't have streams nearby during the entire growing season, forget it.)

2) A simple rural lifestyle for everyone won't support the extractive industries that are needed to sustain it.

Given how far we have come in terms of Urbanization, Economic growth/Capitalism and consumerism, it isn't possible to stop or turn back the clock. Or except for a very small percentage, live simple rural lifestyles.

It looks like it'll be business as usual until something comes along to force a change. What form that change takes when it is forced upon us by conditions that don't allow business as usual is anyone's guess.

Urbanisation is extremely good for the environment, and is very popular indeed with most of humanity. Why anyone would object to it as a voluntary trend I do not understand.

I mean, I understand why a handful of people might prefer not to live in cities; But I have no clue why anyone would object to other people doing so.

Nothing wrong with urbanization per se, it's the sheer scale of it that can cause problems. The issue is scale.

 

[bilby]

Urbanisation is extremely good for the environment, and is very popular indeed with most of humanity. Why anyone would object to it as a voluntary trend I do not understand.

I mean, I understand why a handful of people might prefer not to live in cities; But I have no clue why anyone would object to other people doing so.

Nothing wrong with urbanization per se, it's the sheer scale of it that can cause problems. The issue is scale.

On the contrary. The more the better. Cities take up less land per person, they use resources more efficiently, they have huge economies of scale, they allow people to be more productive, and they render economic goods and services that would be unsustainable in lower density towns or villages.

Scale is good.

A city of ten million people can easily support niche interests - if only one person in ten thousand is keen to play roller laser tag in dinosaur costumes, only a city of that size could possibly support a business catering to their hobby. A hundred thousand villages of a hundred people each would not have a single DinoRollerTag rink (most villages would have less than one potential customer for such a business). Nor could those scattered villages support a single fancy foreign restaurant. Or a cinema.

The larger and fewer your population centres, the more varied people's lives can be; and the more unspoiled land there can be outside those cities. It's even easier for people to get away and find solitude, starting from a city that is surrounded by uninhabited wilderness, than it is starting from a village, where if you go a few miles, you're suddenly getting closer to the nearest population centre, not farther away.

More urbanisation is better than less. And people have been voting with their feet on that fact since the industrial revolution freed them from the need to live next door to the fields where their food is grown.

 

[skepticalbip]

Urbanisation is extremely good for the environment, and is very popular indeed with most of humanity. Why anyone would object to it as a voluntary trend I do not understand.

I mean, I understand why a handful of people might prefer not to live in cities; But I have no clue why anyone would object to other people doing so.

The irony is that it is primarily people who live in urbanized areas who object to others living in urbanized areas and wouldn't consider moving to a rural area themselves.

 

[Jokodo]

Should humanity cease to burn fossil fuels, or even find some magical way to eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow. It would not make one iota of difference to Earth's climate!

If humanity eliminated all CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow, those of us living in houses without heating would freeze to death within weeks, and the rest of us would starve to death within months, as soon as we run out of stockpiled food. You know, there's a little thing about plants and CO2?

Weeks? Wouldn't there be more inertia than that?

I'm honestly guessing, but look at how quickly the temperature drops at night, especially in arid places. That's how efficiently the Earth sheds heat through radiation even with the current green house effect. Now just imagine the temperature drop to be a couple degrees (C) more every night than it is now, without being (entirely) compensated by more warming during the day. I can see things getting uncomfortable pretty quickly.

 

[bilby]

Weeks? Wouldn't there be more inertia than that?

I'm honestly guessing, but look at how quickly the temperature drops at night, especially in arid places. That's how efficiently the Earth sheds heat through radiation even with the current green house effect. Now just imagine the temperature drop to be a couple degrees (C) more every night than it is now, without being (entirely) compensated by more warming during the day. I can see things getting uncomfortable pretty quickly.

I concur. You're likely going to see a feedback effect as water vapour levels in the troposphere will drop rapidly, particularly as air temperatures drop below freezing. So the rate of cooling would accelerate quite noticeably after the first couple of days, and after a few days of rapid falls, probably continue slow cooling for many weeks - at the end of which it would be very cold indeed.

The new equilibrium temperature would be about 15 kelvins lower than current temperatures; I could see that level being reached fairly fast (maybe ten days or so), particularly in continental regions. The oceans would buffer temperatures very effectively, leading to huge storms, as the cold continents draw warm moist air in from the warm oceans.

Continental inland residents might not freeze in the first week or two, but the storms required to transfer enough heat to those areas from the oceans might be harder to survive than mere cold weather would be.

Those in maritime climates would have a much more gradual temperature decline to manage - but are more exposed to those giant cyclonic storms.

So let's not remove all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Perhaps we could just remove enough to get back to the levels we had in the eighteenth century.

 

[DBT]

Urbanisation is extremely good for the environment, and is very popular indeed with most of humanity. Why anyone would object to it as a voluntary trend I do not understand.

I mean, I understand why a handful of people might prefer not to live in cities; But I have no clue why anyone would object to other people doing so.

Nothing wrong with urbanization per se, it's the sheer scale of it that can cause problems. The issue is scale.

On the contrary. The more the better. Cities take up less land per person, they use resources more efficiently, they have huge economies of scale, they allow people to be more productive, and they render economic goods and services that would be unsustainable in lower density towns or villages.

Scale is good.

A city of ten million people can easily support niche interests - if only one person in ten thousand is keen to play roller laser tag in dinosaur costumes, only a city of that size could possibly support a business catering to their hobby. A hundred thousand villages of a hundred people each would not have a single DinoRollerTag rink (most villages would have less than one potential customer for such a business). Nor could those scattered villages support a single fancy foreign restaurant. Or a cinema.

The larger and fewer your population centres, the more varied people's lives can be; and the more unspoiled land there can be outside those cities. It's even easier for people to get away and find solitude, starting from a city that is surrounded by uninhabited wilderness, than it is starting from a village, where if you go a few miles, you're suddenly getting closer to the nearest population centre, not farther away.

More urbanisation is better than less. And people have been voting with their feet on that fact since the industrial revolution freed them from the need to live next door to the fields where their food is grown.

There are natural limits to growth. It still comes down to long term carrying capacity. Which, according to some reports (if resource use, climate change, etc, is correct) we need more than one planet to support the needs and wants our wealthy urban lifestyles in the mid to long term. The critical period being the next sixty years or so. Obviously there are those who don't agree, but time will tell.

 

[Jokodo]

Weeks? Wouldn't there be more inertia than that?

I'm honestly guessing, but look at how quickly the temperature drops at night, especially in arid places. That's how efficiently the Earth sheds heat through radiation even with the current green house effect. Now just imagine the temperature drop to be a couple degrees (C) more every night than it is now, without being (entirely) compensated by more warming during the day. I can see things getting uncomfortable pretty quickly.

I concur. You're likely going to see a feedback effect as water vapour levels in the troposphere will drop rapidly, particularly as air temperatures drop below freezing. So the rate of cooling would accelerate quite noticeably after the first couple of days, and after a few days of rapid falls, probably continue slow cooling for many weeks - at the end of which it would be very cold indeed.

The new equilibrium temperature would be about 15 kelvins lower than current temperatures; I could see that level being reached fairly fast (maybe ten days or so), particularly in continental regions. The oceans would buffer temperatures very effectively, leading to huge storms, as the cold continents draw warm moist air in from the warm oceans.

Continental inland residents might not freeze in the first week or two, but the storms required to transfer enough heat to those areas from the oceans might be harder to survive than mere cold weather would be.

Those in maritime climates would have a much more gradual temperature decline to manage - but are more exposed to those giant cyclonic storms.

So let's not remove all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Perhaps we could just remove enough to get back to the levels we had in the eighteenth century.

Good point about winds. Sticking to temperature though, it obviously wouldn't be a problem for places like Senegal*, where temperatures would remain bearable after a significant drop. And it likely won't be a problem for places like Germany*, at least not initially, as every home comes equipped with a powerful heating unit (longer term, grid load limits and natural gas stocks might become a problem); it's places like Spain* or Morocco* I'm worried about, where many homes don't have heating and people help themselves with blankets when it becomes necessary, which it regularly does.

*Freely replace with corresponding climes in your hemisphere.

 

[Jokodo]

No one on this board has anywhere near the understanding of climate they think they do... it is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Hell, even climatologists don't understand climate as well as those on this board think they do. CO2 is not the soul determinate of global temperatures and climate. Actual climatologists are well aware of this but the propaganda machine pretends it does. CO2 at five times current concentration levels (>2000ppm) would not create a climate too hot for life - we know this because the Triassic period had CO2 levels greater than 2000ppm and life was abundant. Earlier periods had CO2 levels several times higher than that and life was abundant.

This doesn't mean that we should not be concerned about humanity's effect on our ecosystem, we certainly should. However it is folly to panic over political doomsday propaganda. Every weather phenomena we don't like is not evidence of the "destruction of the planet by man".

Certainly you're a candidate for Dunning-Kruger effect yourself. To witness: "we know this because the Triassic period had CO2 levels greater than 2000ppm and life was abundant"

Some of also know that the sun's luminosity was 3-4% lower in the Triassic.

Exactly what I was saying. CO2 is not the sole determinate of global temperature.

That's not "exactly what you were saying". It is in fact almost the opposite of what you were saying: your claim that "we know this because the Triassic period had CO2 levels greater than 2000ppm and life was abundant" assumes that CO2 is the sole significant determinant, and makes no logical sense without that faulty assumption.

The conclusion is probably true, but the inference is not valid.

 

[Jokodo]

Unless we abandon the folly of extractive capitalist economic growth to infinity, there will be nothing to adapt to, the antidote will come and the earth will heal itself over time. Turns out "the primitives" were right all along and we were to arrogant to listen.

And who decides which 99.9999% of the population is to die?

Strip a few of those 9s - you're insinuating less than 10k survivers. The earth is very well capable of supporting tens, of not hundreds of millions living primitive lifestyles. Even before the advent of agriculture, most estimates put the human population in the 7- digit range.

Of course it's not very relevant. Killing (directly or indirectly) 7,000,000,000 people isn't any more ethical than killing 7,590,000,000 or 7,599,990,000

 

[Jokodo]

On the contrary. The more the better. Cities take up less land per person, they use resources more efficiently, they have huge economies of scale, they allow people to be more productive, and they render economic goods and services that would be unsustainable in lower density towns or villages.

Scale is good.

A city of ten million people can easily support niche interests - if only one person in ten thousand is keen to play roller laser tag in dinosaur costumes, only a city of that size could possibly support a business catering to their hobby. A hundred thousand villages of a hundred people each would not have a single DinoRollerTag rink (most villages would have less than one potential customer for such a business). Nor could those scattered villages support a single fancy foreign restaurant. Or a cinema.

The larger and fewer your population centres, the more varied people's lives can be; and the more unspoiled land there can be outside those cities. It's even easier for people to get away and find solitude, starting from a city that is surrounded by uninhabited wilderness, than it is starting from a village, where if you go a few miles, you're suddenly getting closer to the nearest population centre, not farther away.

More urbanisation is better than less. And people have been voting with their feet on that fact since the industrial revolution freed them from the need to live next door to the fields where their food is grown.

There are natural limits to growth. It still comes down to long term carrying capacity. Which, according to some reports (if resource use, climate change, etc, is correct) we need more than one planet to support the needs and wants our wealthy urban lifestyles in the mid to long term. The critical period being the next sixty years or so. Obviously there are those who don't agree, but time will tell.

You're once again changing the topic of discussion. You and bilby were in the middle of discussing urbanisation.

However it remains true that all else equal, an urban lifestyle is much less resource intensive. I grew up in the countryside, in various villages (my parents moved around a bit) none of which had more than a couple thousand inhabitants, none if which was closer than 20k to the nearest town, and typically in a house that was 1 or 2 k from the village's centre. Now, living in the city, I have, among others, within 10 minutes walking distance: two hairdressers, a photo studio, 3 banks, 4 supermarkets from the different chains, two drugstores, a general practitioner and 2 or 3 specialist MDs. The countryside me would have to drive 20k for many of those services. Even if he were to grow all his own food organically, he'd still have a higher carbon footprint, and that's before mentioning how much I save on heating being sandwiched between other apartments. Have you ever checked out the fuel efficiency of modern trucks, and cargo ships? City me could make a point of only buying food grown on other continents and still have a better footprint than country me.

 

[DBT]

On the contrary. The more the better. Cities take up less land per person, they use resources more efficiently, they have huge economies of scale, they allow people to be more productive, and they render economic goods and services that would be unsustainable in lower density towns or villages.

Scale is good.

A city of ten million people can easily support niche interests - if only one person in ten thousand is keen to play roller laser tag in dinosaur costumes, only a city of that size could possibly support a business catering to their hobby. A hundred thousand villages of a hundred people each would not have a single DinoRollerTag rink (most villages would have less than one potential customer for such a business). Nor could those scattered villages support a single fancy foreign restaurant. Or a cinema.

The larger and fewer your population centres, the more varied people's lives can be; and the more unspoiled land there can be outside those cities. It's even easier for people to get away and find solitude, starting from a city that is surrounded by uninhabited wilderness, than it is starting from a village, where if you go a few miles, you're suddenly getting closer to the nearest population centre, not farther away.

More urbanisation is better than less. And people have been voting with their feet on that fact since the industrial revolution freed them from the need to live next door to the fields where their food is grown.

There are natural limits to growth. It still comes down to long term carrying capacity. Which, according to some reports (if resource use, climate change, etc, is correct) we need more than one planet to support the needs and wants our wealthy urban lifestyles in the mid to long term. The critical period being the next sixty years or so. Obviously there are those who don't agree, but time will tell.

You're once again changing the topic of discussion. You and bilby were in the middle of discussing urbanisation.

However it remains true that all else equal, an urban lifestyle is much less resource intensive. I grew up in the countryside, in various villages (my parents moved around a bit) none of which had more than a couple thousand inhabitants, none if which was closer than 20k to the nearest town, and typically in a house that was 1 or 2 k from the village's centre. Now, living in the city, I have, among others, within 10 minutes walking distance: two hairdressers, a photo studio, 3 banks, 4 supermarkets from the different chains, two drugstores, a general practitioner and 2 or 3 specialist MDs. The countryside me would have to drive 20k for many of those services. Even if he were to grow all his own food organically, he'd still have a higher carbon footprint, and that's before mentioning how much I save on heating being sandwiched between other apartments. Have you ever checked out the fuel efficiency of modern trucks, and cargo ships? City me could make a point of only buying food grown on other continents and still have a better footprint than country me.

I was going where the discussion was heading In this instance the comment 'the more urbanization the better' - to which I pointed out that there are limits to growth.

In any case, I probably won't be able to reply during the next few of days because I'm traveling in the outback and may be between towns, no internet coverage.

 

[Jokodo]

You're once again changing the topic of discussion. You and bilby were in the middle of discussing urbanisation.

However it remains true that all else equal, an urban lifestyle is much less resource intensive. I grew up in the countryside, in various villages (my parents moved around a bit) none of which had more than a couple thousand inhabitants, none if which was closer than 20k to the nearest town, and typically in a house that was 1 or 2 k from the village's centre. Now, living in the city, I have, among others, within 10 minutes walking distance: two hairdressers, a photo studio, 3 banks, 4 supermarkets from the different chains, two drugstores, a general practitioner and 2 or 3 specialist MDs. The countryside me would have to drive 20k for many of those services. Even if he were to grow all his own food organically, he'd still have a higher carbon footprint, and that's before mentioning how much I save on heating being sandwiched between other apartments. Have you ever checked out the fuel efficiency of modern trucks, and cargo ships? City me could make a point of only buying food grown on other continents and still have a better footprint than country me.

I was going where the discussion was heading In this instance the comment 'the more urbanization the better' - to which I pointed out that there are limits to growth.

Which is neither here nor there with respect to urbanisation. If, as I illustrated, more people can lead comparable lifestyles while using less resources in an urban setting than in a rural one, urbanisation if anything helps extend those limits.

 

[angelo]

Should humanity cease to burn fossil fuels, or even find some magical way to eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere tomorrow. It would not make one iota of difference to Earth's climate!

I'm well aware of what you believe. It's just amusing to observe the internal contradictions in your worldview.

I've asked you before to post one, just one prediction GW/CC/CD of doom made in the past decade that's actually occurred! Just as well I wasn't holding my breath for a response! The cult has taken hold of many and blinded all rational thought on the subject unless it's pro.

 

[DBT]

You're once again changing the topic of discussion. You and bilby were in the middle of discussing urbanisation.

However it remains true that all else equal, an urban lifestyle is much less resource intensive. I grew up in the countryside, in various villages (my parents moved around a bit) none of which had more than a couple thousand inhabitants, none if which was closer than 20k to the nearest town, and typically in a house that was 1 or 2 k from the village's centre. Now, living in the city, I have, among others, within 10 minutes walking distance: two hairdressers, a photo studio, 3 banks, 4 supermarkets from the different chains, two drugstores, a general practitioner and 2 or 3 specialist MDs. The countryside me would have to drive 20k for many of those services. Even if he were to grow all his own food organically, he'd still have a higher carbon footprint, and that's before mentioning how much I save on heating being sandwiched between other apartments. Have you ever checked out the fuel efficiency of modern trucks, and cargo ships? City me could make a point of only buying food grown on other continents and still have a better footprint than country me.

I was going where the discussion was heading In this instance the comment 'the more urbanization the better' - to which I pointed out that there are limits to growth.

Which is neither here nor there with respect to urbanisation. If, as I illustrated, more people can lead comparable lifestyles while using less resources in an urban setting than in a rural one, urbanisation if anything helps extend those limits.

It's not a question of here or there or if urbanization can increase carrying capacity of a nation, a state or the planet....It can up to a point... but like everything else, urbanization itself has limits.

 

[Jokodo]

Which is neither here nor there with respect to urbanisation. If, as I illustrated, more people can lead comparable lifestyles while using less resources in an urban setting than in a rural one, urbanisation if anything helps extend those limits.

It's not a question of here or there or if urbanization can increase carrying capacity of a nation, a state or the planet....It can up to a point... but like everything else, urbanization itself has limits.

So when you said the scale of urbanisation is causing problems, you didn't mean that the scale of urbanisation is (note: present tense) causing problems, but that something that has very little to do with urbanisation will (future tense) cause problems long after you've died?