How to Survive the Coming Century

[mina.magpie]

I posted here a few months ago about James Lovelock's book, Revenge of Gaia, and how it predicted a worst-case scenario of massive climate change in a relative short span of time that would severely test our capacity to adapt. At the time he wrote the book, his scenario was supported by only a handful of scientists. Since then though, as climate feedback mechanisms have become better-understood, the scenario he envisions is becoming more widely accepted.

New Scientist has an article out today about what the world would look like at 4degC warmer, the temperature rise now predicted by 2100, or 2050, depending on whether you're an optimist or not. The article also has a cool interactive map showing how various regions will change between then and now.

[Gaia Vince] How to Survive the Coming Century (25 February 2009, New Scientist)

ALLIGATORS basking off the English coast; a vast Brazilian desert; the mythical lost cities of Saigon, New Orleans, Venice and Mumbai; and 90 per cent of humanity vanished. Welcome to the world warmed by 4 °C.

Clearly this is a vision of the future that no one wants, but it might happen. Fearing that the best efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions may fail, or that planetary climate feedback mechanisms will accelerate warming, some scientists and economists are considering not only what this world of the future might be like, but how it could sustain a growing human population. They argue that surviving in the kinds of numbers that exist today, or even more, will be possible, but only if we use our uniquely human ingenuity to cooperate as a species to radically reorganise our world.

Mina.

[lisagurl]

They argue that surviving in the kinds of numbers that exist today, or even more, will be possible, but only if we use our uniquely human ingenuity to cooperate as a species to radically reorganize our world

Even if the climate did not change we are using resources faster than they can naturally replenish. We can not continue at this level.  In order for humans to survive we must have a negative population growth at least to 4 billion from the 6.5 billion we have today. Fighting among our selves is one way to reduce population and it has been the historic choice. Beliefs and human nature make it almost impossible to correct the problem peacefully. The living standards of the west will be decreased.

[mina.magpie]

I agree, though I think with the kind of loss in fertile land and water sources predicted, we'll be squeezed down way further than 4 billion.

Mina.

[Sophie90]

Basically, buy a boat.

And a gun.

[Rachael]

Maybe your tin foil hat can double as a canoe?

[Sophie90]

Maybe your tin foil hat can double as a canoe?

Oh very good.

[Alyssa M.]

I'm pretty sure I have no chance of surviving the next century. I've heard that those restriction diets only work on small mammals, and that humans have already pushed their lifespan about as far as possible; regardless, I couldn't deal with those diets. I like Mexican food too much for that.

[mina.magpie]

I'm pretty sure I have no chance of surviving the next century. I've heard that those restriction diets only work on small mammals, and that humans have already pushed their lifespan about as far as possible; regardless, I couldn't deal with those diets. I like Mexican food too much for that.

Vegan Mexican is realllllly cool.

Mina.

Post Merge: February 27, 2009, 11:37:14 AM

Maybe your tin foil hat can double as a canoe?

Haha!  Perhaps the truck will miss if you squeeze your eyes shut very tightly.

Mina.

[Rachael]

Or perhaps if i dont foolishly build my house on a flood plain, or the coast.... oh damn! Why didnt i think of that before!


Plus i always wanted Sheffield to be a seaside town.

Look, New scientists predictions are an estimate. I might point out that there is significant displacement of water that the Arctic ice cap holds, that when melted, will fill that space....
The antarctic is in less danger of melting due to its being on land.... There is insulation from the ocean currents. ( a key factor in the arctic melting)
Plus, if the arctic does melt, the gulf stream will shut off  (the thermohaline circulation will shift) and the world will cool rapidly, stoping further melting and heating almost over a year.... the world has ways of regulating itself.

I'm sortof glad the entire world wont be flooded... I heard that all these Drama Llama get seasick....

[imaz]

If the Gulf Stream packs in I'm off. Thank God I've got family in warmer climates.

[Rachael]

need I point out the phalacy in that logic?

[imaz]

Can't see it, must be dumb!

You mean that there would be no time to get out? No planes etc? Where I'd be going there are plenty of mountains and 17,000 islands so somewhere will be OK. I hope!

[Rachael]

No, i mean hot places now, will not be if the thermohaline current shifts.

[imaz]

Surely on the Equator it's not going to get that cold? That would require an axis shift or something to happen to the sun. Five degrees less in Indonesia would do me just fine

[Alyssa M.]

Can we admit nobody on this forum knows what the climate will be in 100 years?

Can we admit that nobody in the IPCC knows or even claims to know what the climate will be in 100 years?

Can we admit that systems (like the climate) sometimes express negative feedback (which mitigates changes caused by outside forces, like CO2 emmissions) and sometimes positive feedback (which enhance the effects) and we don't have a very good idea what those effects might be 100 years from now (since they depend upon the climate) much less which will be more important?

Can we admit that climate issues are already a problem to humans and life on earth in general?

Can we admit that human societies have adapted in different ways over the millenia to climate pressures?

If you're worried, you shouldn't be. It's not nearly as bad as you think.
If you're not worried, you should be. It's way worse than you think.

[imaz]

Can we admit nobody on this forum knows what the climate will be in 100 years?

Can we admit that nobody in the IPCC knows or even claims to know what the climate will be in 100 years?

Can we admit that systems (like the climate) sometimes express negative feedback (which mitigates changes caused by outside forces, like CO2 emmissions) and sometimes positive feedback (which enhance the effects) and we don't have a very good idea what those effects might be 100 years from now (since they depend upon the climate) much less which will be more important?

Can we admit that climate issues are already a problem to humans and life on earth in general?

Can we admit that human societies have adapted in different ways over the millenia to climate pressures?

If you're worried, you shouldn't be. It's not nearly as bad as you think.
If you're not worried, you should be. It's way worse than you think.

Agreed, it's like living in a dodgy 40 floor tower block in an earthquake zone. Which is the best floor to be on when it collapses, top, bottom or middle...

[Rachael]

Can we admit nobody on this forum knows what the climate will be in 100 years?

wrong actually

Can we admit that nobody in the IPCC knows or even claims to know what the climate will be in 100 years?

wrong actually

Can we admit that systems (like the climate) sometimes express negative feedback (which mitigates changes caused by outside forces, like CO2 emmissions) and sometimes positive feedback (which enhance the effects) and we don't have a very good idea what those effects might be 100 years from now (since they depend upon the climate) much less which will be more important?

Yes, these do happen, but can be predicted with some accuracy thanks to paleoclimatalogical data.

Can we admit that climate issues are already a problem to humans and life on earth in general?

well yes... they have been since life began.

Can we admit that human societies have adapted in different ways over the millenia to climate pressures?

Look hon, We have these things called 'models' and we use paleoclimatalogical data to reconstruct past environments and how they changed. We do the same with the future. It is possible to predict with certain accuracy the possible feedbacks from tectonics, temperature change, Human influences, and other modifications. This allows us to predict how things will be to a certain accuracy....

I, a lowly Physical geography Undergraduate am creating a rainfall model for my local city for the next 100 years... i hardly have the recources of scientists around the world. If its possible for me to do this, its entirely possible, and accurate with more recources...

Global warming aside, Climate has always changed, you're right, but its the fact we can predict it that causes the worry.

[Alyssa M.]

Okay, all the IPCC reports I have seen have very large intervals of uncertainty. One of the biggest reasons for this is that we don't know how much forcing there will be -- that is, IPCC can't predict how much carbon we will release. But even fixing that, there's still large uncertainty, precisely because of possibly nonlinear behavior of things like the Gulf Stream. At some point i stop believing the models -- a point that is after significant change has happened.

Still I understand that we have ample reason to worry about the climate.

But climate change is unlikely to cause a collapse in human civilization. We'll get by, just like we've gotten by other terrible calamities (plague, 100 years war, WWII, etc.). Avoiding it is a really good idea, but it's not going to be the end of us.

[Rachael]

ofcourse... its just drama llama grazing again....


As for the gulf stream... well its been fairly constant for 10,000 years.... I think its got its act down quite well now...

[Alyssa M.]

I often can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing, Rachael. To wit: Are you saying I'm being overly dramatic? Or Mina? or what?

What is you opinion on global warming? It's a catastrophe? A non-issue? Some of both? Somewhere in between?

You brought up the Gulf Stream (initially, several posts ago). Obviously in some regime it behaves in a linear fashion -- double the forcing and it doubles the response. But the earth's climate has certainly undergone fairly sudden shifts, analogous to phase transitions or spontaneous symmetry breaking; basically like a rocking chair: you push it and it comes back, but if you push hard enough, eventually it'll topple over. Where this happens is what I think is the big unknown. That's just a general phenomenological observation; where it happens I don't know.

But even supposing it happens, it don't think it means utter upheaval any more than anything else in human history.

If you're calling me overly-dramatic, well, I don't see how you get that out of what I'm saying here.