World, Writing, Wealth discussion
This topic is about
The Uninhabitable Earth
Book and Film Discussions
>
The Uninhabitable Earth
date
newest »
newest »
I haven't read it, but if the Antarctic ice sheets move the way they are predicted to move, that might be an underestimate. Accompanying the movement of people will be the corresponding loss of a significant percentage of our agricultural land.
For me, that falls under the category of things I can personally do nothing about, so I'm not spending energy worrying about it. Meanwhile, I'm making the most of every day.
For me it is a little different. From my previous research, I know there are things we could have done, but at the time nothing could compete with cheap oil so nobody did any of the necessary development. For my ventures, it was impossible to get the necessary money because as an investment at the time it made no sense. Now it is necessary, but we haven't got it.
Visiting a few friends the other day, one of them (who studied environmental science but then went into another field) started talking about something called "the grand solar minimum", a cooling trend that could lower temperatures for the next few decades. Goes opposite the global warming theorists who talk about droughts and melting icebergs.
Declaring that a warming trend will lead to droughts and a cooling trend will do the opposite is seriously overstating matters.The paleontological evidence indicates the opposite to have been true in the past. For example, the dryest periods during the existence of Homo sapiens were ice ages. Not only were massive quantities of water tied up in the ice caps, the lower temperatures slowed the hydrologic cycle leading to weaker monsoons. Conversely, there have been several periods during which the Sahara was green because of stronger monsoons caused by higher average ocean temperatures.
What can be said with certainty is that climate change has been and will continue to be a factor in life on Earth. The degree to which we impact it appears to have been increasing over the course of the Industrial Revolution. Declaring that the End is nigh is just as wrong headed as dismissing it.
Dry is relative. The Sahara was wetter during the ice ages because condensation worked better. Some very dry periods occurred in certain places during the Jurassic when temperatures were ten degrees higher. Yes, it was dry in some places during the ices ages because the water was tied up in glaciers, but the sea level was over a hundred meters lower and the rainfall would have been in places now under water. If you look at a map of New Zealand and look at the area between the South Island and the Chathams there is the remains of a huge river system. There had to be a lot of rain for that. Of course the world will not end with climate change, but a few billion people might live in starvation conditions if we are not clever enough.
I don't read those types of books in general. Ocassionally, I read fiction where genetic modification results in food crops failing. Like Scout stated, I generally don't worry about doomsday type of stuff. I also know that in any situation in which society breaks down, I am unlikely to survive and I accepted that a long time ago.Human beings have repeatedly built cities in places that flood. I have never been to New Orleans, but that is the first one that comes to mind (drained the swamps to provide more land).
On my last visit to California a few years ago, I did a tour of old Sacramento, which is underground. Because of flooding from the river and 3 months of rain, in 1862, they ended up rebuilding/raising the city 10 to 25 feet above the original sea level streets. Ignoring the "ghost" part of this page, the photos and facts are illuminating. I remember one spot was a brothel in the original city. The University was doing excavating. They used ladders to climb down from the building entrances to the street and then back up along the other side and children earned money by assiting women inlcuding to prevent anyone from looking up ladies' skirts.
https://amyscrypt.com/sacramento-unde...
Not going to worry about something I can't change.
I have not read the book, but it looks interesting. I am generally not a reactionary to climate science. It is much too complicated to figure out and the models do not work as predicted. I do not believe the doomsday predictions. Having said that, I still think it is prudent to not pollute our world. As for the world ending, I have been hearing about it my entire life and we are still here. BTW, you do not hear about this much, but big oil is already moving on from oil. We have gone past peak oil. Once this gets out and hits the mainstream news and general public, they will shift focus onto the next catastrophe.
Of course the world won't end anytime soon, although its will in about 5 billion years, but who cares? On the other hand, at present people in the developed world lead lives that are the most comfortable in all history. That comfort will be partly lost for many, and there will be huge population culling due to starvation/disease if the ice shelves fall off. A city like Beijing will be under water. Will the ice shelves fall off? Nobody knows, but the signs are not promising. Can we do anything to stop them? Yes, we can, but we won't because as a population we ignore the seriousness of what might happen until it does, and in this case it will be too late. As for climate models, they are nowhere near adequate for predictive purposes, BUT they only tell what is predicted for the next fifty years. None of them offer an end position.
Still not worrying about something I can't change.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine...
Look out the window. The world is still there, and not much different from yesterday :-)
UN Climate report out today. It will not make good reading.Will it make a difference?
Mind you politicians worldwide have other problems like, fires and heat waves in USA, fire and heat waves in Greece, fires and heatwaves in Siberia, flooding in Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, extreme heat or soaking wet in UK.
Clearly no time to read a report. Lots of paper (despite electronic) lots of meetings physically including planned conference in November. Lots of travel required by politicians to see for themselves the impact of climate change.
We have a tactical issue at the moment with the pandemic but strategically we may have lost another world as we know it. Not the end of the world just an end of current world. I would like to think that the Maldives will still be there in 100 years but I doubt it. I would like to think the Borneo rain forest and Orang Utans will still be there in 50 years but some rain forest might be Orang Utans probably not. Amazonian rain forest - same fate, Coral reefs gone. New ones will grow in the new warmer waters but how long before they are the size of the barrier reef. 500 years, 1000?
As with the pandemic I'll await the deniers who will dispute the science, argue the impracticality. Who'll bring a bucket of water whilst Rome burns. Meanwhile population will creep up towards 10 billion so another 2.5 billion consuming and creating rubbish, needing power and water.
I agree with J’s post from 14th June and Philip’s last one too.
Good to see you acknowledge that the covid tactical issue is part of our leaders’ overall climate change strategy, Philip, but an ill-judged battle based on deceit is not a good way to win a just war.
Good to see you acknowledge that the covid tactical issue is part of our leaders’ overall climate change strategy, Philip, but an ill-judged battle based on deceit is not a good way to win a just war.
Beau wrote: "I agree with J’s post from 14th June and Philip’s last one too.Good to see you acknowledge that the covid tactical issue is part of our leaders’ overall climate change strategy, Philip, but an il..."
Actually lock down did reduce carbon emissions for a brief period - fewer cars on roads, less factory output, Perhaps that was the plan - either that or reduce human population by a billion to achieve same aim - as conspiracy theories go another fuel to the global warming fire but both spectacular failures. Emissions will recover, travel will recover and then we'll be back trying to persuade everyone to reduce carbo foot print.
Philip wrote: "Beau wrote: "I agree with J’s post from 14th June and Philip’s last one too.
Good to see you acknowledge that the covid tactical issue is part of our leaders’ overall climate change strategy, Phil..."
Lockdowns and other restrictions have certainly reduced CO2 emissions. I wouldn’t be surprised if a scientific study (not for public consumption) revealed masks have too.
Not only does overwhelming scientific evidence point to manmade CO2 emissions at least partly causing global warming, it makes logical sense. Unlike the pandemic, the arguments stack up.
I’m all for modifying the way we live to tackle this problem. Increased prices (possibly outright bans) on some forms of transport, increased working from home, strict government/ industry targets and continued incentives to produce low-carbon technology are just some of the options available. Politicians and other leaders need to persuade people that this is the right thing to do. The sooner we realise the current economic age is over, the better for all of us.
What I object to is modifying people’s behaviour through exaggerating the seriousness of a pandemic. It is incredibly cruel to peddle unnecessary fear, deprive people of human contact, cause them to take action that actually harms their health, and pull the rug from under the feet of some of the most economically vulnerable and emotionally fragile people.
Our rulers need to rethink what they're doing and begin again by leading through example. No jetting off to climate change conferences, do it online; no silly space tourism, it’s irresponsible when we’re aiming to cut CO2; and extensive investment, paid for by those who can best afford it, to retrain workers impacted by the changes.
Let’s try and tackle global warming, wherever we can, but by open and honest debate and actions, not through a scam.
Good to see you acknowledge that the covid tactical issue is part of our leaders’ overall climate change strategy, Phil..."
Lockdowns and other restrictions have certainly reduced CO2 emissions. I wouldn’t be surprised if a scientific study (not for public consumption) revealed masks have too.
Not only does overwhelming scientific evidence point to manmade CO2 emissions at least partly causing global warming, it makes logical sense. Unlike the pandemic, the arguments stack up.
I’m all for modifying the way we live to tackle this problem. Increased prices (possibly outright bans) on some forms of transport, increased working from home, strict government/ industry targets and continued incentives to produce low-carbon technology are just some of the options available. Politicians and other leaders need to persuade people that this is the right thing to do. The sooner we realise the current economic age is over, the better for all of us.
What I object to is modifying people’s behaviour through exaggerating the seriousness of a pandemic. It is incredibly cruel to peddle unnecessary fear, deprive people of human contact, cause them to take action that actually harms their health, and pull the rug from under the feet of some of the most economically vulnerable and emotionally fragile people.
Our rulers need to rethink what they're doing and begin again by leading through example. No jetting off to climate change conferences, do it online; no silly space tourism, it’s irresponsible when we’re aiming to cut CO2; and extensive investment, paid for by those who can best afford it, to retrain workers impacted by the changes.
Let’s try and tackle global warming, wherever we can, but by open and honest debate and actions, not through a scam.
Beau, what's the deceit or a scam? I think the approach is to appraise the potential and act to minimize it, if found hazardous, rather than attribute it seriousness only after it, god forbid, reaches the magnitude of Spanish flu's casualties. Sure, we all know by now that you oppose lockdowns, but not every issue should be connected to corona :) As of climate change and apart from installing giant aircons at both poles - desperately needed!, it might be that we'd be reaching a point where the entire consumer economy should be overhauled. Maybe big biz can't be insulated from any other than moneymaking concerns and run to least regulated location just to avoid any responsibility. If a big and ever-growing percent of the electricity consumption goes on mining of cryptocurrencies - maybe it's time to abandon and outlaw the entire idea. To develop and enforce technologies and timelines for winding down of proven and least contested as of their environment impact techs. Maybe the gap in division of resources becomes unsustainable..
The report surely got attention, will there be any political will to do something about it rather than solemnly declare?
On my modest part, I try to bring any waste to recycling point and use reusable containers. As much as I like them, not sure, I have room to accommodate an orangutan
Philip wrote: "UN Climate report out today. It will not make good reading.Will it make a difference?
Mind you politicians worldwide have other problems like, fires and heat waves in USA, fire and heat waves in..."
Report out, and as I gather, it is now impossible to avoid the 1.5 degree rise. No real news there. Even Blind Fred could see this coming, although it appears Trump could not. So the real question is, What now? We cannot get where we allegedly want to be by cutting back a few emissions: the tipping point is already baked in.
There is a way out but again the politicians will put heads in sand, the Greenies will object on the grounds that it isn't "natural", and the bleat about "personal rights" will be a further objection. After all, each person living in Denver has the right to drown those in Florida, and those who cannot do calculus have the right to burn everyone, including themselves.
Ian wrote: "...There is a way out but again the politicians will put heads in sand..."It was called the Paris Agreement instead of the Paris Treaty because none of them wanted to do the work of hammering out an actual treaty and then spend the political capital to get it ratified. It was never anything but theater.
Philip wrote: "UN Climate report out today. It will not make good reading.Will it make a difference?
Mind you politicians worldwide have other problems like, fires and heat waves in USA, fire and heat waves in..."
Regarding the GBR, recovery is occurring in all locations.
REF: https://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitori...
There's a cottage industry in Australia that requires 'Reef Doom,' for revenue. James Cook University being one of them, and of course, the media will amplify any fear, doom & gloom story for ratings.
Meanwhile good news that would balance out the narrative is silenced.
I am not sure about good news being silenced. Regarding climate change is there any good news?The Paris agreement, as J. notes, was not even an agreement because nobody did anything. The idea of using things like carbon credits and other financial tools cannot work because they don't create alternatives and are merely means of raising taxes. Leaving aside the fact there is no good evidence evs can even save carbon over their lifetime and there is not enough cobalt to make them even plausible world-wide, our government is pushing for them in order to be seen to be doing something. Then, a couple of nights ago there were brown-outs in places because ordinary electricity production was insufficient, we were busy burning coal in some generators, and finally for environmental reasons one major coal generator was not informed of the problem and hence offered nothing (it takes about ten hours to crank up a coal-fired generator). With this sort of stupidity, I can't see much progress being made, especially since if we stopped emitting greenhouse gas totally right now (which is not going to happen) the problem is not defeated. The system has profound hysteresis and we are way out of equilibrium.
As it's a major climate bestseller, wonder whether anyone has read it and what s/he thinks about it?