Jump to content

The environmental changes of a cooked world.

Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

There's a lot of uncertainty going around as to what will really change on the ground. I, for one, am very interested in this. This isn't about sea level rise: we're still looking at around 1m, 2m rise by 2100; a lot will still be the same or easily walled off. By the time we're in the tens of meters, that's down this millennium and out of my purview. 

 

Here are some examples of stuff I've come across.

 

QNQi6FX.png

 

2V6aROE.png

 

And at the most extreme end, with little to no sources I've found, this map from Parag Khanna. He lists off a few sites and maps which I'll posit below. But if the prediction that we'll see a world 4c warmer by 2060 does come to pass, it's still a bad outcome.

 

Extreme map that I can't find a source for:

 

0JJnZrs.jpg

 

Maps cited by Parag Khanna:

 

dn17864-2_800.jpg

 

From New Scientist; and that only led me to one document here from the "Royal Society Publishing".  That's quite a...difference. Parag is trying to sell a book I can't find nothing about, so maybe that's it. 

 

But yea, what do ya'll think?  Rubel and Kottek's estimation has a lot of Siberia opening up, but arguably little change elsewhere. The map about desertification feels right, and that's been a big hurdle since the 00s and 90s: the Sahel disappearing, aquifers drying up in the South West, the Gobi. and the steppe. The weakening of Europe and the huge drive up along the Rockies? That's something we'll feel, for sure.

 

Then comes Parag's map which I'm this close to just writing off as a fiction unless I get some data, and my bias is saying that if there is any data, it's being squished into a more recent timescale than what it presents.

 

Speaking of data, let me add some IPCC numbers I read from the...2018? 2017? report.

 

Okay, so the IPCC said: 100% certain that: less cold days, more warm days, the permafrost will decline by a third or so. The ocean will be more ocidic. No Northern Hemisphere Glacification before 3000AD. Sea level WILL rise beyond 2100; but for this century we're in the ballpark of 1-2m.

 

It's very likely,  (75+ chance of happening) that by the late 21st century (I'm taking late to be around 2066, 2075+) that the Ocean will deoxify by a few percent. There will be more warm spells, more heavy precipitation. The ocean conveyor belt will weaken but not collapse. More atmospheric CO2, methane, nitrous oxide.


It's likely (60% chance or so) that the global temperature will rise by 1.5c to 4.5c. That means the 4c warming scenario is highly probable. Okay, sure.  The subtropics will lose precipitation. Glaciers will decline. The Ozone hole will expand. More droughts.

 

It's Semi-Likely (around 50? 40?% - flip a coin) that Tropical Cyclonic Activity will intensify. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet disappears, but only above 4.5C temp increase. 

 

It's Unlikely - around 33%, my note is '1 in 3' - that Antarctica and Greenland will lose all ice by the late 21st century. That's a bit high for something so drastic, with a sea level increase of...10 to 30? metres. That's... a lot.

 

Very Unlikely - around 20%, still that's 1-in-5, too high for my tastes - that the Conveyor Belt system just...shutdowns completely.

 

It's exceptionally unlikely, still around 10%, that we'll see a 6.0C increase by the late 21st Century. 

 

General stuff is that if we reach 1.6C by the 2050s, 9-31% of all current extant species will be extinct, most reefs gone, half of wooded Tundra lost.

 

 If 2.6c by 2080, loss of 25% of all large African mammals and most tropical rainforests.

 

60% of  widespread and common plant species, and 35%% of widespread and common animal species will see habitat range shrinkage, up to a half of what they have now, by 2080.

 

20-30% of plants and animals will be subject o an increased risk of extinction if temps rise by 2.6c. If the temp rises by 4c, we're looking at the 40-70 ('flip a coin') range.

 

75% of South American aquifers depleted by 2050. This I think is important to note because, well, that affects people. That's what starts political crises and refugee movements. 


20,000 more pollution related death per 'temp rise' (1c tiers?)

 

There's an upside is that Temperate food production might increase and that's due to the climate zones shifting north. More Siberian, Canadian, North East, High European farming.

 

37% of all permaforst will disappear in a 2.6c scenario by 2100.

 

1m sea level rise will displace around 100,000,000.

 

Now, there are other reports, of the last year or so, that have gotten a huge, how should we say, doomer reaction from the populace. What's in those reports? I don't know. I think one is from the UN and hasn't been fully published yet. What was thrown around is that it's all 'worse-case scenario' is basically the scenario we're getting or gunning for, and the number '8.5' is thrown around a lot which I think is basically 'we're going to warm up by 8.5c'. In what time frame I don't know. I don't think we 'only have 12 years' to solve it or '2 years or we're doomed', but extrapolating from it all, we should at least be prepared for the heavy end of Climate Change within this century or even the stuff for 2050. And since most of us will be alive then, that's something I think we should brace for. 

 

Again, what do ya think? Sorry for the number dump.

 

 

Edited by Eshanas
addded numbers, data, notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

For the most part, I disagree with the cause being solely because of human actions, (what the majority of the media publicizes) but not entirely disconnected. From what I have seen and heard from actual scientists that study more than just human interactions with the environment, solar activity and other less easily quantifiable sources of the heating are a bigger contributor.

 

As for the extent, those are definitely worst case... Any semi-realistic prediction says that the chances of each of those things should be reduced by about 2/3. The most likely doomsday scenario is that the heat will increase just enough to trigger the release of the methane deposits at the bottom of the ocean. If this happens, everyone and everything on the surface of the planet will suffocate in a matter of hours. (unless you're above ~7500 feet ASL, IIRC) It will also result in basically the entire rest of the planet being engulfed in flames for several weeks/months, and destroying basically everything in a planet-wide methane fireball. Note, this is the most likely doomsday scenario, and it has a less than 15% chance of happening when given a generous helping of "worst case".

 

We really need to get off this planet, and not mess up other planets when we get there.

Edited by BTGBullseye

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, BTGBullseye said:

For the most part, I disagree with the cause being solely because of human actions, (what the majority of the media publicizes) but not entirely disconnected. From what I have seen and heard from actual scientists that study more than just human interactions with the environment, solar activity and other less easily quantifiable sources of the heating are a bigger contributor.

Could you share those sources, because that's in contradiction to pretty much every scientific sorce I came across.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately they are not lasting online sources. They are direct chats with scientists working on the climate models, and I talk with them to provide them with a less conventional viewpoint so they can produce a more comprehensive model. None of the models are complete yet, so no online resources for it exist yet.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, BTGBullseye said:

Unfortunately they are not lasting online sources. They are direct chats with scientists working on the climate models, and I talk with them to provide them with a less conventional viewpoint so they can produce a more comprehensive model. None of the models are complete yet, so no online resources for it exist yet.

Well, post them when they do exist. It's interesting. Until then, I'm gonna stick to evidence we do have.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 8/19/2019 at 9:48 PM, BTGBullseye said:

For the most part, I disagree with the cause being solely because of human actions, (what the majority of the media publicizes) but not entirely disconnected. From what I have seen and heard from actual scientists that study more than just human interactions with the environment, solar activity and other less easily quantifiable sources of the heating are a bigger contributor.

 

As for the extent, those are definitely worst case... Any semi-realistic prediction says that the chances of each of those things should be reduced by about 2/3. The most likely doomsday scenario is that the heat will increase just enough to trigger the release of the methane deposits at the bottom of the ocean. If this happens, everyone and everything on the surface of the planet will suffocate in a matter of hours. (unless you're above ~7500 feet ASL, IIRC) It will also result in basically the entire rest of the planet being engulfed in flames for several weeks/months, and destroying basically everything in a planet-wide methane fireball. Note, this is the most likely doomsday scenario, and it has a less than 15% chance of happening when given a generous helping of "worst case".

 

We really need to get off this planet, and not mess up other planets when we get there.

"I agree that global warming is happening, just not that it's mostly man made" is a common and thinly veiled form of climate change denial, and "we need to get off this planet" is a denial of responsibility to take action.  There is no planet B. We need to take action RIGHT NOW or we all die.

On 8/20/2019 at 3:12 PM, BTGBullseye said:

Unfortunately they are not lasting online sources. They are direct chats with scientists working on the climate models, and I talk with them to provide them with a less conventional viewpoint so they can produce a more comprehensive model. None of the models are complete yet, so no online resources for it exist yet.

image.png.e7136df5b2c1128d4b45b2a17d7b0212.png

Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Annie said:

"I agree that global warming is happening, just not that it's mostly man made" is a common and thinly veiled form of climate change denial, and "we need to get off this planet" is a denial of responsibility to take action.

"I hate you, so I will intentionally take anything you say in the worst possible context, not the one it's obviously intended to be." - Annie

4 hours ago, Annie said:

image.png.e7136df5b2c1128d4b45b2a17d7b0212.png

That's every scientist ever, whether they publish a paper or not. It's not like you're going to go out and do all the science yourself just to confirm or disprove anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Except that's not every scientist ever. Scientists have to go into great detail about what they did to conduct the experiments, talk about whether or not what they observed supports the hypothesis, explain the processes they used to reach those conclusions, AND have it reviewed by other members of the scientific community to make sure everything is in order. Also, you know, needs to be something publicly accessible to be valid and trustworthy because otherwise anyone can make any claim and say their sources are private which AGAIN, you'd have to be a fool to accept it right there. Observing the results of such detailed documentation may take a level of trust as does any information you hear ever, but it is still the most reliable method to understanding something when you do not have the means to perform these experiments yourself. Talking to a scientist with no evidence other than your word is neither trustworthy nor reliable.

 

And she has a point about the mindset you're taking. It's quite frankly useless. It offers nothing that helps in the long run. It's contentedness to do absolutely nothing about a serious issue instead of, you know, at least TRYING to do something.

Edited by Blightmare

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, BTGBullseye said:

"I hate you, so I will intentionally take anything you say in the worst possible context, not the one it's obviously intended to be." - Annie

If you think I'm taking what you're saying out of context then you can bother to explain what you actually meant. Simply pointing out that I'm taking something you're saying out of context without saying exactly how is a cop-out and doesn't actually prove that I am, and so far it looks like you're rejecting the idea that humans are solely responsible for global warming (which by and large, they are.)

23 hours ago, BTGBullseye said:

That's every scientist ever, whether they publish a paper or not. It's not like you're going to go out and do all the science yourself just to confirm or disprove anything.

Scientists have the credit and qualification to speak on such matters, not to mention their findings have to be reviewed by OTHER people who are accredited and qualified to speak on such matters before they're published and accepted as fact. Sorta comes off as you equating scientific research with something some dude said on a forum with no credit, no qualification, no sources, only personal anecdote.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/6/2019 at 4:21 PM, Blightmare said:

Except that's not every scientist ever. Scientists have to go into great detail about what they did to conduct the experiments, talk about whether or not what they observed supports the hypothesis, explain the processes they used to reach those conclusions, AND have it reviewed by other members of the scientific community to make sure everything is in order.

And you still have to trust all that, despite the fact that there have been people that did all that for a hoax, just to prove that that is not infallible.

13 hours ago, Annie said:

If you think I'm taking what you're saying out of context then you can bother to explain what you actually meant.

No. This isn't the first, second, or even as low as tenth time you've done it. I'm not clarifying for you just because you're unwilling to ever try and understand.

13 hours ago, Annie said:

Scientists have the credit and qualification to speak on such matters, not to mention their findings have to be reviewed by OTHER people who are accredited and qualified to speak on such matters before they're published and accepted as fact. Sorta comes off as you equating scientific research with something some dude said on a forum with no credit, no qualification, no sources, only personal anecdote.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-eleven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes/

 

It's not infallible, don't act like it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

We never said it's infallible, we said it's the most reliable. I'm not trusting a person's word on the internet no matter how many times they ask me to when they never never never ever show sources for these wild claims against accepted science. And in the odd case where sources were provided they're either from a biased source or one that actually proved the contrary to the point. 

 

It's so much harder to pull off false information when you have to show your work than it is to just say "yeah some scientist I talked to said". So yeah, my mind is open to changing should information come along that would change it but anecdotal evidence ain't it, chief.

Edited by Blightmare

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, BTGBullseye said:

And you still have to trust all that, despite the fact that there have been people that did all that for a hoax, just to prove that that is not infallible.

Nobody's saying scientific research is infallible, scientific research is what gave us such botched concepts as eugenics which served to inspire such tragedies as the holocaust. And in fact, speaking of scientific research which is completely fallible, much of the climate research leading in to the 90s and 2000s was funded by oil tycoons to dispute previous findings that climate change was caused by humans and would eventually lead to global catastrophe. These are the same oil tycoons that fund propaganda against climate action that is featured prominently in conservative media. None of this addresses the core fact that you source your claims with nothing more than the vague notion that you "heard it from a scientist".

7 hours ago, BTGBullseye said:

No. This isn't the first, second, or even as low as tenth time you've done it. I'm not clarifying for you just because you're unwilling to ever try and understand.

This isn't the first, second, or even tenth time you've spent your time and energy making conspicuously false claims and insulting those who'd contradict you without bothering to prove them wrong or prove yourself right. You NEVER take responsibility when something you claim is clearly false and you NEVER defend yourself when you're truly convinced that you're right. You have an incredibly narcissistic attitude when it comes to this sort of thing. You can't be wrong but you can't be bothered to tell people why either, this always happens.

7 hours ago, BTGBullseye said:

11 times we got it wrong vs. the thousands of times we got it right. People with agendas do fund and conduct research but it's exceedingly rare that bullshit gets passed off as truth considering the scrutiny placed upon published research. Well, at least, people who are clever enough to not take seriously the hoax that vaccines and autism are linked are typically clever enough to tell when they're being bullshitted.

Share this post


Link to post

This is exactly why results of studies being reproducible is such a big deal is science. There are number of reasons why results of a study can be wrong – we're all just human. For example, we might not account something that actually changes the result. That's why single study showing something isn't really worth that much.

 

Multiple studies showing the same thing however is different matter. I might not trust single team researching something (and some magazines will publish literally anything, so it's always worth checking where it was published), but not trusting 10 independent teams simultaneously is much more of a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post

Mankind is capable. Gigatons of Water vapour, Co2, and Methane over centuries in an near-perfect enclosed system has consequences. Mankind cuts down, overburdens, reaves and reaps the world; and then is surprised when their economies and states collapse; and try to blame nature for not being tougher, and never looks to itself for demanding too much. How many species has man killed? How many proud states have fallen because Man dried up the aquifiers, cut down the forests, closed up the rivers, broke the mountains? And how many more will die and how many more states will fall? We pump gigatons of Co2, Water Vapour, Methane, et al every year for a century or so. That builds up. 

 

In that regard;

 

 

The IPCC has made a new report that'll I'll try get my hands on. An overview here has some revelations.

"in a worst case high-emissions scenario, sea level would increase by 3 feet by 2100 and by 12 feet by 2300." (Let's face it, we're not meeting the Paris Climate Agreement).

'...and to a loss closer to 70% in a worst-case scenario. In that high-emissions scenario, thawing permafrost could lead to a “release of tens to hundreds of billions of tons of permafrost carbon as CO2 and methane to the atmosphere by 2100 with the potential to exacerbate climate change.” For comparison, humans currently release about 10 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, so this feedback could be equivalent to adding decades’ worth of human carbon emissions into the atmosphere if fossil fuel use continues unabated.'

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.