[HN Gopher] Land Gained and Lost: A Fermi Estimate
___________________________________________________________________
Land Gained and Lost: A Fermi Estimate
Author : mhb
Score : 73 points
Date : 2022-03-19 13:20 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (daviddfriedman.blogspot.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (daviddfriedman.blogspot.com)
| ______-_-______ wrote:
| "I wish most of Canada wasn't so cold"
|
| And the monkey's paw curls.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| This reminds me of Bjorn Lomborg going on the some interview show
| and saying that we should evaluate also the positive aspects of
| climate change, for example Denmark could use some warmer weather
| ha ha ha, charming reptillian smile.
| sebmellen wrote:
| Do you have a link? I've never known quite what to think of
| Lomborg.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| No I don't offhand, my girlfriend at the time was doing a
| climate change project and that was one of the sources so
| theoretically I could find it. It was on Glen Beck, I found
| one but it wasn't the one I saw
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xquohKzR8QI , here Lomborg
| says good to be back so I guess that means he was on at least
| one time before.
|
| I remember in the interview I saw they were in the same room,
| this one is over a video call.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| well went through the emails we had around the time, and
| the various versions of the report, but couldn't find a
| transcript or link to the Glen Beck video.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Mostly nonsense masquerading under math/science and missing
| forest for the trees. Rising temperature does not in itself make
| land arable or suitable for habitation. In fact it would probably
| have the opposite effect in sub-arctic regions by causing
| extensive desertification, forest fires, flooding, erosion, etc.
|
| I can't speak for land in Siberia, but I can speak about land in
| the north here in my own country, Canada.
|
| The limiting factor for arability in the north here is not
| temperature, but soil (or, rather, the absence of it.)
|
| Most of the north of Canada, especially the near-north which is
| now mostly boreal forest, is shallow soil overtop of an almost
| (or fully) exposed granite base we call the "Canadian shield". It
| covers a huge portion of the country. It doesn't matter how warm
| you make it, you won't be able to farm it.
|
| Warming the north also means massive forest fires, which we are
| already seeing.
|
| In areas where the soils are decent and that aren't on the shield
| there's _already_ farming quite far north. E.g. take a look at
| the Peace River etc areas of Alberta. There 's quite a few crops
| you can grow quite far north. (Also much of Canada isn't
| geographically that far north anyways, when compared to Eurasia.)
| But you have to have dirt to grow it in.
|
| As for the tundra / taiga / permafrost even further north, I
| don't know much about the potential soil quality of that land (I
| doubt it's great though, it's quite arid), but its thawing is
| already leading to massive erosion problems and population
| decline for native species.
|
| EDIT: Just for context: The Canadian Shield is 8 million km^2.
| The total _land_ surface area of the earth is 148 million km^2,
| thus: _The Canadian shield is 5% of the entire land surface of
| the EARTH, 8% of the northern hemisphere 's land mass and 80% of
| Canada's landmass._
| jotm wrote:
| Why is the focus on arable land? Is it that important
| considering agriculture is ridiculously effective? Imo, any net
| gain would be offset by the massive energy use needed to offset
| climate change (in turn creating even more climate change), the
| destruction of natural habitats (animals won't just up and move
| to new land) and the unrest from mass human migration (humans
| won't want to settle that new land, either, instead opting for
| already developed parts).
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I mean I wasn't _just_ focusing on arable land. I mentioned
| erosion, desertification, and forest fires as well. People
| aren 't going to want to pack up and move to a place
| surrounded by a) smoke all summer long <see also the pacific
| northwest last summer> and b) with no economic life near.
|
| In any case in areas that aren't already settled industrial
| centres, agriculture is usually the first primary industry to
| develop. Though perhaps now it could be oil & gas and
| forestry as well.
| tomrod wrote:
| Agreed. There is more to soil than dirt, including microbes,
| fungi, and soil dwelling aerators like worms.
|
| Soil is a miracle of which we are the beneficiaries. Increasing
| the amount of available land doesn't result in improved soil
| quality.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| > Soil is a miracle of which we are the beneficiaries.
|
| Soil is not a fixed quantity item though, we can make more of
| it. Part of the problem is the Cost of Living (and
| subsequently the cost of a marginal farm worker), and many of
| our ways of scaling farm productivity are tragedies of the
| commons (atmosphere, water & soil quality, fertilizer farming
| abroad)
|
| a long while back I heard Joel Salatin speak about various
| systems for rebuilding dirt to soil . Really roughly it
| involved inedible biomass like hay, animal fecal material,
| churning/aeration to get bacteria more active, and then
| distribution across and through the land by animals
| (ploughing) .
|
| Geoff Lawton talks about tools for permaculture and includes
| bird droppings -- for a small amount of food you can get bird
| droppings distributed into your environment to improve the
| soil quality.
|
| In many ways big machinery is disadvantaged in this system
| because of things like their waste goes into the atmosphere
| rather than the soil.
| leereeves wrote:
| > The limiting factor for arability in the north here is not
| temperature, but soil (or, rather, the absence of it.)
|
| According to Wikipedia, "Approximately half of Canada is
| covered by forest."[1] If the soil is deep enough to grow
| trees, why can't it grow crops?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_Canada
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Many reasons including PH, Soil retention under weathering
| (tree roots hold soil, and reduce wind erosion from leaves
| too), preferred fertilizer mix (nitrogen for example).
|
| This all said, there are plenty of farming techniques that
| can make the land productive, it's just not as simple as
| clear cut + plant.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| I invite you to drive three or four hours north of Toronto
| and see for yourself. Or just Google image search "Canadian
| shield", I think it will become clear to you. It's beautiful
| country, BTW. But not farm country. (I personally would
| welcome the challenge, but my wife and kids would probably
| not appreciate it)
|
| It's a thin layer of top soil overtop of granite, often
| exposed. a) it's variable terrain and mostly not level and
| full of exposed rocks, so not suitable for mechanized agri.
| Just getting a house built there with a well or basement
| often involves dynamite b) Trees roots can penetrate nooks
| and crannies most agri crops can't. c) the soil pH is wrong,
| it's quite acidic in spots.
|
| It goes on like that for probably more than 1/2 of the
| Canadian land mass BTW.
| hervature wrote:
| As somebody who grew up 5 hours north of Toronto where the
| primary industry is agriculture, I find this incredibly
| insulting. Do you think a picture in a textbook exemplifies
| the entire region? Go look at satellite photos of the
| triangle Ville-Marie, Rouyn-Noranda, and Val-d'Or and tell
| me what you see? It will be nothing but farmland and this
| is in the dead center of the Canadian shield.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Whatever, I never said anything about it being 100%
| monolithically seas of exposed granite. I've been around
| Northern Ontario and seen plenty of farmland, but it's
| the exception to the rule and that can be clearly seen in
| satellite maps.
|
| BTW that area looks neat. I'd like to visit. But it does
| look like the farmland there is a product of a low lying
| lake basin, maybe sedimentary deposits left over after
| glaciation? And sticks out like a sore thumb from the
| surrounding area. (EDIT: just read up on the "Timiskaming
| Graben"... cool!)
|
| I do think, on the whole, northern Ontario stands to do
| better out of climate change than many other places in
| the world.
| thepangolino wrote:
| jddil wrote:
| mistrial9 wrote:
| sure, but it is vote based here.. post what you want to see
| gregwebs wrote:
| I think this glosses over the issues of land becoming more arid.
| Most of the western United States is struggling to deal with this
| and it seems likely that agricultural output will decrease in
| these areas even if the land is not unusable by the standards of
| this article.
| manholio wrote:
| A significant concern the author is not considering is soil
| salinity. Most of the coastal land is not easily defendable
| cities, but productive agricultural land.
|
| When sea level rise then the salty water infiltrates into the
| ground water and makes vast amounts of soil infertile, from
| what I understand a much larger area than the zone lost
| directly to flooding. This will destroy massive wealth and push
| rural farmers inland, in conflict with each other or the wild
| areas.
| karlkatzke wrote:
| It also glosses over that arctic land isn't usable for
| agriculture. There's nowhere near enough fertile soil in former
| permafrost. The areas that did have fertile soil are now
| deserts or covered in salt water. It really comes off as
| disingenuous to me in that regard; it's a quantitative analysis
| without any of the qualitative measures that are necessary.
| masklinn wrote:
| > There's nowhere near enough fertile soil in former
| permafrost.
|
| Not only that, former permafrost is highly unstable almost by
| definition: as soon as it starts melting it starts shifting.
| This is already starting to be an infrastructure issue, as
| roads and bridges built on/in permafrost degrade at very high
| rate when it thaws.
|
| And that's before considering the cool methane bombs. Nothing
| says stability like your field or house being replaced by a
| 40m deep crater.
|
| And then, obviously, global warming / permafrost melting
| doesn't magick a more reasonable insolation. Even ignoring
| soil quality factors, agricultural yields start degrading as
| you go further towards the poles because the seasons and
| sheer amount of sun are crap.
| Y-bar wrote:
| Similarly. Where I live (Scandinavia) we have seen modest
| change in precipitation on a yearly basis, and if you look at
| our country as a singular unit. However, the when and where
| when looking more detailed into the numbers reveal that
| lowland/farmland gets drier while highlands get wetter. We now
| have yearly drought warnings due to this.
| vegetablepotpie wrote:
| This is an interesting, coarse grained analysis. If you were
| looking for a false sense of security, or evidence to use in a
| melodramatic argument, this would fit.
|
| The fundamental problem with climate change is the amount of
| uncertainty it brings. All of civilizations infrastructure has
| been built assuming a constant climate system. With 1-6 ft of sea
| level rise possible, and 1.5 - 6 degrees of warming possible, and
| completely uncertain impacts to local climates, I can't tell you
| _where_ to build the next sea port, farm, and city.
| VariableStar wrote:
| Exactly. Also there is no mention of how temperatures are
| distributed and how extremes occur. A +3degC increase does not
| merely mean a linear shift of the temperature records but also
| an increase in the spread of the values, often meaning making
| tails fat, i.e. increasing the likelihood of high temperature
| extremes.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| And on the high end, those extremes coupled with humidity can
| kill.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature#Wet-
| bulb_...
|
| Neal Stephenson's latest novel, Termination Shock, starts
| with an Indian city hitting this point and having the power
| grid fail due to demand for air conditioning, resulting in
| millions dead. It's fairly plausible.
| kornhole wrote:
| You were referring to Kim Stanley Robinson's latest book,
| The Ministry for the Future. I have read both and recommend
| both highly.
| tomrod wrote:
| Thanks for the recommendations!
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Ack, you're right! Thanks! Mixing up my recent readings,
| whoops.
| fpoling wrote:
| Stable climate have never existed. 9000 years ago the average
| temperature was likely higher than presently by 1 - 1.5 degree.
| 1000 years ago Northern Atlantic and Pacific were warmer than
| today. Vikings called Newfoundland Wine Land due to grapes that
| where grown there. Then that rapidly shifted into much colder
| conditions.
|
| And then the next ice age can start within the next 1000-2000
| years which is much worse for the civilization than global
| warming to the point that perhaps pumping CO2 into atmosphere
| is not a bad idea if it allows to stop that.
| f-securus wrote:
| Current climate change is happening at an incredibly fast
| rate compared to historical fluctuations. I don't think they
| are comparable. But the point is nobody knows for certain so
| when it comes to modifying our environment at a grand scale
| we should probably try to be conservative.
| akvadrako wrote:
| This is not true at all. During the recent period known as
| the Younger Dryas average global temps changed about 5degC
| over a few decades and then did it again in the opposite
| direction 1000 years later.
|
| The post-industrial period is so short it wouldn't even
| register on most historical proxies.
| fpoling wrote:
| There were a lot of rather abrupt changes even during
| Holocene [1]. We do not understand what could have been
| triggers for those changes. Which really emphasizes that we
| do not know how the climate works and as a civilization
| should have being preparing for the worst.
|
| [1] - https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319
| -16006-...
| hutzlibu wrote:
| In general it is true, that climate changes are normal.
|
| But the drastic, artifical change we are about to wittness,
| is something new.
|
| https://xkcd.com/1732/
| roamerz wrote:
| Based on the the contrast of your text to the background this
| kind of factual comment is not popular here lol.
|
| I think stop global warming at all costs segment here as well
| as society as a whole would be better served by getting
| behind initiatives that promote anti pollution ie getting rid
| of coal and burning oil to produce grid energy. Solar is good
| too. Put your energy into promoting that and other solutions
| such as planting more trees instead of planting yourselves in
| front of a badly needed oil pipeline. I and a large segment
| of the population might support those efforts more if they
| were more centrist and weren't so hostile to society. Focus
| on the common sense stuff.
| fpoling wrote:
| Short-term given the current political situation burning
| coal is better than burning oil or natural gas. Coal is
| distributed much more evenly among countries than oil and
| gas. Wars like in Ukraine or Yemen are only possible due to
| money Russian or Saudi Arabia earns from the energy export.
| And pollution from wars may offset any savings from
| supposedly cleaner energy sources. Plus coal transportation
| is much more distributed operation making it resilient in
| case of natural disasters or terrorism. Plus the latest
| coal plants approaching 50% efficiency with proper capture
| of bad things in coal are not that bad.
|
| Longer term wind and especially solar are way better
| precisely because they allow very local production, but
| full switch to those is a far future especially with the
| current realization that cloudy sky with no wind can lasts
| for months even in supposedly sunny places.
| gmuslera wrote:
| Focusing on economic gains?
|
| Cities flooded by each time more frequent heavy rains or
| directly sea rise won't come cheap, and that is where most of
| human population lives (and most will lose everything they
| have). It is not that new land opens elsewhere while everything
| else keeps being in exactly the same way as today.
|
| It could mean death by extreme weather, starving, more frequent
| wars for billions, but I suppose that if they aren't in the top
| 1% it doesn't matter nor have an economic value to be weighted
| by those equations.
|
| And it is a process. Is not something that will slow down or
| stop till we get back to the amount of GHG and feedback loops
| of 100-200 years ago, and we don't have an advanced technology
| enough to be undistinguishable from magic regarding this.
| Things will keep getting worse, maybe not at the level of Venus
| by Tuesday, but bad enough to risk most of life on the planet
| (including ours).
| thepangolino wrote:
| Victerius wrote:
| Another beneficial consequence of climate change over the long
| term will be the return of megafauna. Apatosaurs, dunkleostei,
| sarcosuchus imperator, and others will make a comeback. I can't
| wait.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| or, anything larger than a dog will fail (extinction) in the
| wild.. many pollinators, species with a large range, and
| species with specific habitat needs and long breeding cycles,
| will fail.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > I want to know if they are, for some reason, wildly wrong.
|
| Yes, they are. Agriculture transforms solar energy into food. Any
| analysis that ignores the solar input is wrong by principle.
|
| Land area is an important secondary variable, you will need it
| too, but the main variable isn't even on the article.
| wazoox wrote:
| This seems to naively suppose that the gain could offset the
| losses. Except for the problem that large populations, cities,
| ports, industries etc are located on the coasts, while the land
| gains in cold, remote regions will be probably mostly useless for
| centuries.
| manholio wrote:
| The sea level rise is slow enough that no actual populated
| areas will be "flooded" leaving people homeless. Rather, it
| will be a very predictable process, each year the sea will rise
| by a small steady amount.
|
| The natural life of a city building is on the order of 100
| years, on the same scale as the sea rise phenomenon. So cities
| and people will incorporate that into their planning and
| property valuation and urban areas will naturally shift towards
| higher altitudes as new buildings are constructed and old stock
| is abandoned.
|
| For particularly valuable pieces of real estate, defenses will
| be built. If sea walls were viable 200 years ago for
| agricultural land in the Netherlands, it will surely make sense
| for Manhattan.
| jotm wrote:
| Maybe people should abandon these cities. It's sunk cost
| fallacy, I think? This land is valuable, therefore we'll
| invest enormous resources into keeping it livable, creating
| even more climate change, requiring even more investment...
|
| Eventually they'll have to be abandoned anyway, that energy
| use would be way more efficient just a few miles inland.
| Which I just realized is in part what you said :D
| kadoban wrote:
| What really happens is that areas flood more and more often
| due to "freak" storms. Eventually they're under water full
| time, but well before that, nobody can live there.
|
| > The natural life of a city building is on the order of 100
| years
|
| That's great except sea level rise is going to be a lot
| faster than that.
| manholio wrote:
| Why would 0.6 m of water make a city unlivable? Will 0.6 m
| make a place where are no "freak" storms into a place
| "under water full time"?
|
| That is an entirely savage fantasy. 0.6 m is nothing
| compared to the natural rate of change in a modern city.
| See for example the embanking of the Thames, or try to
| imagine how the beaches of New York looked 100 years ago.
| They were built, rebuilt and raised and redesigned many
| times over.
| gmuslera wrote:
| Never cross a river that is on average 4 feet deep. Storms,
| currents, each time more frequent extreme weather, disrupted
| climate features (like the polar vortex or AMOC). It won't be
| an orderly, even and without side consequences inch by inch
| sea rise. You will have pretty chaotic living conditions
| decades before that average sea rise, do you feel lucky? Can
| buy another house in another city if yours get flooded by a
| week long heavy rain next year? Can most people do that?
| beebeepka wrote:
| Dale Gribble: I say let the world warm up, see what Boutros
| Boutros-Ghali-Ghali thinks about that! We'll grow oranges in
| Alaska.
|
| Hank Hill: Dale, you giblet-head, we live in Texas. It's already
| a hundred and ten in the summer, and if it gets one degree
| hotter, I'm gonna kick your ass!
| TimPC wrote:
| Does anyone else find a man who makes a living selling propane
| and propane accessories criticizing others over global warming
| to be a bit rich?
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Drought and flood projections undermine the 'usable' claim:
|
| https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2881/earths-freshwater-future-...
|
| Projected result on agricultural production? (IPCC 2020):
|
| "World Bank (2009) projected that, without the carbon
| fertilisation effect, climate change will reduce the mean yields
| for 11 major global crops, such as millet, field pea, sugar beet,
| sweet potato, wheat, rice, maize, soybean, groundnut, sunflower,
| and rapeseed, by 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa, by 11% in Middle East
| and North Africa, by 18% in South Asia, and by 6% in Latin
| America and Caribbean by 2046-2055, compared with 1996-2005. A
| separate meta-analysis suggested a similar order of reduction in
| yields in Africa and South Asia due to climate change by 2050
| (Knox et al., 2012). Schlenker and Lobell (2010) estimated that
| in sub-Saharan Africa, crop production may be reduced by 17-22%
| due to climate change by 2051. At the local level, climate change
| impacts on crop yields vary by location (Chapter 5). Negative
| impacts of climate change on agricultural productivity contribute
| to higher food prices. The imbalance between supply and demand
| for agricultural products is projected to increase agricultural
| prices in the range of 32% for rice to 100% for maize by 2050
| (Nelson et al., 2010), and cereal prices in the range between a
| 32% increase and a 16% decrease by 2030 (Hertel et al., 2010)."
| jsnell wrote:
| Why does the author think that for the effects of high
| temperatures it's the annual average that matters, but for the
| effects of low temperatures it's the minimum? It seems
| intuitively obvious that the extremes matter way more for both
| cases. A place with a steady 30 degrees temperature across the
| year is just fundamentally more habitable than one with the same
| average coming from 60 degree peaks and 0 degree troughs.
|
| (The obvious answer is that the inconsistency is in bad faith, to
| fudge the numbers into fitting the author's preferred narrative.
| Is there any legitimate explanation?)
| electromech wrote:
| Where are you getting that from the article? He seems to
| address that point:
|
| > Both of these calculations are based on average temperature.
| Arguably what habitability depends on is be maximum
| temperature. If it gets unendurably hot during a summer day,
| the fact that winter nights are cold is little compensation.
| jsnell wrote:
| I'm getting it from what the author does, rather than what
| they say. The calculation for high temperatures is based on
| annual averages. The calculation for low temperatures is
| based on the coldest time of the year.
|
| I had missed that sentence, but fail to see how it makes
| things better. It just means that the author is aware of the
| problem and has no excuse for using a different methodology
| for the two cases.
| vegetablepotpie wrote:
| I didn't want to believe your parentheses text, but I found
| that the author also has an article criticizing climate
| projections as volatile and too far into the future [1].
|
| This is straight up climate denial. It's very pernicious. It
| admits that climate is changing, it references one of the more
| dire predictions (3 C), and it doesn't deny that the change is
| human caused. It's pernicious because it _shifts_ attention
| from an important negative implication (uncertainty with
| climate) towards an positive but inconsequential impact (more
| land area). Instead of talking about mass migrations of
| billions of people and food availability, we're talking about
| land.
|
| These arguments are always all over the place, they vary from
| "it's not happening" to "don't worry about it if it is" Climate
| skepticism has never been about good faith scientific inquiry,
| it's always been about insulating incumbent interests from
| change.
|
| [1] http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2021/11/a-prediction-
| we-w...
| dboreham wrote:
| I had this idea 25 years ago. Move to a place where it's cold,
| and away from the sea (Montana), and over time it will get
| warmer. In some respects it worked out. It did get warmer. There
| are far fewer < 0F days here now. More people want to move here
| now which has increased property prices, increasing my net worth.
|
| However, not all is positive. Warmer springs mean much more ice
| on roads, making driving more dangerous, more flooding, erosion.
| Less snowpack means more fires and larger fires. It's becoming
| more difficult to get insurance. Lack of extreme cold in winter
| allows invasive species to survive. Insects that would have been
| killed by the cold now devastate trees, killing them, making fire
| risk even worse. Severe hailstorms are now more common,
| increasing the risk of damage to vehicles and buildings.
| [deleted]
| m0llusk wrote:
| I know at least one midwestern US farmer who quit and sold his
| land which had been in his family for generations because
| increasing frequency of large storms made his harvests
| unreliable.
| electromech wrote:
| The most important part of the post:
|
| > This is a draft of a chapter for a book I am working on... My
| conclusions are pretty dramatic and I want to know if they are,
| for some reason, wildly wrong.
|
| I am familiar with the author; he's genuine about wanting
| feedback. Some of the comments here are likewise genuine, but I
| worry that other readers here are like this fellow:
|
| > The obvious answer is that the inconsistency is in bad faith,
| to fudge the numbers into fitting the author's preferred
| narrative.
|
| You want "bad faith," try assuming the author's plea for feedback
| is dishonest.
| ianai wrote:
| He also states this datum isn't brought up in climate change
| discussions. It absolutely is brought up. Just listen to just
| about any interview with David Wallace-Wells and he'll say it's
| a mixed bag with some regions seeing benefits and others
| catastrophe. And that's just one author. This overstatement
| suggests questionable motives.
| epall wrote:
| No mention of permafrost? Yes, the _air_ will be more habitable,
| but if the _ground_ is a boggy mess, you're not going to be doing
| much with this newly habitable land.
| saalweachter wrote:
| There were also no occurrences of the words "sun", "light", or
| "insolation".
|
| The further away from the equator you go, the more your
| sunlight becomes a fickle seasonal creature hitting you at odd
| angles in varying intensity. Temperature isn't the only
| variable affecting the growing season and agricultural
| productivity.
| searchableguy wrote:
| Is there a way to detect permafrost and remove it using
| available tech?
| KyeRussell wrote:
| Thank you for reminding me that I'm on Hacker News.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| 11% of the planet's surface has permafrost. Good luck.
| JulianMorrison wrote:
| Detect it: poke a stick. It stops, at a pretty consistent
| depth, and not because of rock.
|
| Remove it: overheat the planet. It will turn to mud. Anything
| built on it will subside or sink. Massive amounts of trapped
| organic matter will turn to methane.
|
| Eventually, I presume the area would settle into a new
| climatic zone, with neither permafrost nor mud. Emphasis on
| "eventually".
| ianai wrote:
| "They also imply that nearly five hundred times as much land is
| gained through warming as is lost through sea level rise, which
| makes it odd that only the latter is commonly included in
| discussions of the effects of climate change."
|
| Not odd. Wars are fought over "border changes" and resources
| which this definitely constitutes. The changes would be global
| and so would the war. This is a very simplistic view to the point
| of neglect crossing into malice.
| [deleted]
| somenameforme wrote:
| > "The changes would be global and so would the war."
|
| One thing that might lead different people to different
| perspectives is reflected in your choice of words. Climate
| change and sea level rise is not a future tense, but a present
| tense scenario. It's already happening. It's easy to view it as
| something that happens where you go from today's "normal" to
| the sea rise of the future and perceive the chaos that must
| entail. The NOAA, in their 2019 report, puts the worst case
| scenario at up to 5 meters by the year 2300. [1] So the tail
| end worst outcome results in an overall sea level rise of less
| than 2cm a year. There is of course an acceleration but it's
| relatively gradual. It never goes from zero to 'Let's go
| swimming on Main St.'
|
| If you'd like to see what might happen in a hyper-accelerated
| case of sea level rise, you can follow the news about Bangkok.
| Bangkok is a city that was built on a marshy soft clay type
| terrain and so the literal weight of urbanization and
| development within the city is causing the city to sink by
| compressing the terrain under the city. This is further
| compounded by real sea level rise, local climate conditions
| (annual extreme typhoons), and relatively poor infrastructure.
| A bit of a perfect storm. Estimates vary but the city is
| sinking by around 2cm per year.
|
| It's an issue and is affecting the city. But it's not really
| triggering a panic or causing any sort of chaos. The city is
| trying to resolve the issue using technological and
| developmental solutions, and life more or less goes on. Should
| the solutions prove untenable I expect the city will gradually
| start to decline in population with a proportional increase in
| population to outlying areas. And life continues.
|
| [1] -
| https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating...
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-19 23:01 UTC)