Consequences of climate change

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

p1t1o
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby p1t1o » Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:36 pm UTC

I think I vaguely recall something about the global temperature increase causing expansion of the atmosphere, which would have a real (but minor) impact on LEO satellites.

And something about when very large masses of ice melt, or shift, the crust underneath can "relax" a bit, changing topography slightly. Theres that dam in china that has changed the rotational period of the Earth (by a few microseconds) by collecting a large mass of water that wasnt there before.

But I dont think anyone sees these as disaster-level effects. Nobody will notice a few cm height change in mountains and what, satellites become very slightly more expensive than they already are?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11032
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:48 pm UTC

Those are all fairly minor, yeah. Interesting within their niche, but not disaster level. The land thing can actually mitigate rising sea levels in an extremely minor way. Slight silver lining, I guess, but not enough to be a big deal. If you're losing land based glaciers, that's way worse than the inch or two you might get from the lost weight.

Ocean acidification and sea level rise are larger concerns. Coral bleaching can impact ecologies, and there are a few other effects from the former. Maybe not disaster level for everyone, but I could see it being fairly described as such for a town that relies on the fishing industry if the local fisheries are impacted.

Sea level rise only really comes into play when ice atop land melts. If it's in the water, it's like an ice cube in a glass. Water level stays roughly the same. Sea ice is more immediately affected by warming and fluctuates more rapidly, but is a great deal less important. Even a fairly modest rise in sea level can make an oceanside community more vulnerable to storm surges. Humankind tends to favor living near water, so a lot of humanity lives close enough to the coast that even if they're not in danger of flooding, a local flood would certainly impact their lives.

You can see a smaller scale example of this in other coastal changes. There's a lot of land added/removed by water at present, and it can leave an area vulnerable to disaster, or requiring significant costly upkeep for dredging, etc. Extrapolating that out...it's significant. If you're considering beachfront property, I'd suggest erring on the side of caution when considering potential flood/storm threats. In MD, they keep putting new developments in by the water with single digit elevations relative to the Chesapeake. It's been okay so far, but...the margin for error there does not seem comforting.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:31 pm UTC

The increased drought, and arable land changes are going to be the biggest disasters that aren't obvious. Like What happens if all the food production in Africa gets stressed because of climate intensified drought, and the Chinese/corporations bought all the good land/water? You have a recipe for unending refugee crisis, and the beginnings of conflict/terrorism/war. And all this unending conflict gives rise to tribalism, which makes everything worse.
Read any Pentagon climate change report, and it's all about weather induced conflict.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby webgiant » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:10 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I'm not a denier in any way (I trust scientists to know what they're talking about) but the consequences that I've read about, including in this thread, still don't seem to warrant the kind of panic that some people seem to be having. If we shift to having a cozy Greenland and arable Canada while New York gets submerged and Kansas becomes a desert, but that takes a century or two to happen, that sounds like something that humans are more than able to adapt to. ... As sea levels and deserts encroach on currently inhabited places, those people on the border of the change will face gradual pressure to move, and places that are unlivable now will be opening up and people will be moving to them. It's not like we have to suddenly relocate everyone in New York to Greenland right now or they'll all die.


Have you met human beings? Currently there's a huge number of people refusing to accept the science so they can Stay Right Where They Are and Do The Same Things They've Always Done. There will be no Orderly Line Formed to allow everyone to leave on a schedule. There will be a massive panicky move when its way too late to do the move in an orderly fashion. In essence, it is like we have to plan to suddenly relocate everyone in New York to Greenland in a few days or they'll all die, because the human beings, like the metaphor** of a frog slowly being boiled, will stubbornly stay put until the new climate has reached near lethal levels.

Before Climate Change there were people who built houses in floodplains, or in forests with lots of bone dry tinder. Humans go where they want to be, and stay there until something lethal shoves them out, but the potential that something will be lethal in the near future is not a hindrance to their choice of accommodations.

There's also the non negligible point that the humans already in a location sometimes resist it when a huge migration happens from somewhere else. Wars and anti-immigration movements sprout from sudden moves of huge numbers of human beings. Moving everyone from New York to Greenland, or even just to Canada, will Cause Comment.

** Thanks to some fortunately ethical research, it was determined quite some time ago that frogs, being dependent on instinct and not governed by silly human foibles, will leap out of a pot of water when the heat is slowly turned up, and well before the water becomes painful to a frog's touch. Humans still wait until its too late to move easily, so the metaphor is good to describe human behavior even though scientifically untrue for frogs. Also frogs have less in the way of personal possessions, and don't have relatives nearby they want to wait for as the wildfire/flood gets closer.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2998
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:20 am UTC

The question is how they convinced the frogs to stay in the pot even before they started heating it.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7429
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Zamfir » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:59 am UTC

Humans still wait until its too late to move easily, so the metaphor is good to describe human behavior even though scientifically untrue for frogs.

I don't have a citation, but I would expect that humans also jump out of a pot before it boils.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2998
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:25 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Humans still wait until its too late to move easily, so the metaphor is good to describe human behavior even though scientifically untrue for frogs.

I don't have a citation, but I would expect that humans also jump out of a pot before it boils.

There would still be a percentage telling everyone who would listen that water warming was a conspiracy and the forming bubbles were part of a natural cycle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11032
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:13 pm UTC

webgiant wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I'm not a denier in any way (I trust scientists to know what they're talking about) but the consequences that I've read about, including in this thread, still don't seem to warrant the kind of panic that some people seem to be having. If we shift to having a cozy Greenland and arable Canada while New York gets submerged and Kansas becomes a desert, but that takes a century or two to happen, that sounds like something that humans are more than able to adapt to. ... As sea levels and deserts encroach on currently inhabited places, those people on the border of the change will face gradual pressure to move, and places that are unlivable now will be opening up and people will be moving to them. It's not like we have to suddenly relocate everyone in New York to Greenland right now or they'll all die.


Have you met human beings? Currently there's a huge number of people refusing to accept the science so they can Stay Right Where They Are and Do The Same Things They've Always Done. There will be no Orderly Line Formed to allow everyone to leave on a schedule. There will be a massive panicky move when its way too late to do the move in an orderly fashion. In essence, it is like we have to plan to suddenly relocate everyone in New York to Greenland in a few days or they'll all die, because the human beings, like the metaphor** of a frog slowly being boiled, will stubbornly stay put until the new climate has reached near lethal levels.


Pfhorrest isn't wrong. One side does advocate panic/oversells disaster*, while the other side advocates the good ol' head in the sand technique. Neither strategy is rational.

*The Armstrong-Gore bet is an example demonstrating this. While Gore refused to actually take the bet of ten grand as to if he was correct, or if the hypothesis of "no change" was more accurate, the resulting data was closer to the latter interpretation. This is not the same thing as disproving global warming. It's merely acknowledging that folks have over-represented the danger, sometimes to the point that deniers actually had a more accurate forecast of the future.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Ranbot » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:55 am UTC

p1t1o wrote:And something about when very large masses of ice melt, or shift, the crust underneath can "relax" a bit, changing topography slightly.

That's "post-glacial rebound," which depending on the amount of ice removed can occur in a few years or over thousands of years. For example, around the Great Lakes in US and Canada the ground surface still rebounding today from ~10,0000 years ago when glaciers up to 2 miles high compressed the land and pushed the crust into the mantle.

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Heimhenge » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:51 pm UTC

Not as significant, probably, as the other consequences discussed, but I just read an article claiming road travel will become less safe because of lack of infraction enforcement by police. They ran a study comparing traffic stops with temperature and found stops go down as temperatures rise. Something about officers being less motivated to get outa their air conditioned cruiser and interact with a driver.

I have a feeling that would apply to things like a broken tail light or dangling license plate. But I wonder what it does to the decision to enforce speed limits? Here in the USA the rule of thumb seems to be you're OK anywhere up to 10 mph over the posted limit. Would that go up to 15 mph in hot weather? 20 mph?

If you're weaving and crossing lane markers, and are an obvious hazard, I doubt temperature would make a difference. At least I hope so.

So yeah, I suppose less safe roads is another consequence. But like I said ... minor compared to the others.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6363
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby ucim » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:24 am UTC

Long term? Siberia becomes habitable, and a rich source of food. The US midwest becomes a desert again, as it becomes too difficult to deal with the climate changes. The Arctic sea becomes navigable, opening up trade routes with Russia and Canada in the lead.

How fast? Dunno. But when it happens, it will be irreversible.

Now... who benefits? Who loses? Which world leader is by his actions promoting global climate change? Those are left as an exercise to the reader.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby sardia » Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:46 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Long term? Siberia becomes habitable, and a rich source of food. The US midwest becomes a desert again, as it becomes too difficult to deal with the climate changes. The Arctic sea becomes navigable, opening up trade routes with Russia and Canada in the lead.

How fast? Dunno. But when it happens, it will be irreversible.

Now... who benefits? Who loses? Which world leader is by his actions promoting global climate change? Those are left as an exercise to the reader.

Jose
The rich countries benefit, and survive it. The poor countries suffer. That's the way it's always been.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1696
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Sableagle » Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:31 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
Humans still wait until its too late to move easily, so the metaphor is good to describe human behavior even though scientifically untrue for frogs.

I don't have a citation, but I would expect that humans also jump out of a pot before it boils.

There would still be a percentage telling everyone who would listen that water warming was a conspiracy and the forming bubbles were part of a natural cycle.

Image
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2998
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:02 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The Armstrong-Gore bet is an example demonstrating this. While Gore refused to actually take the bet of ten grand as to if he was correct, or if the hypothesis of "no change" was more accurate, the resulting data was closer to the latter interpretation. This is not the same thing as disproving global warming. It's merely acknowledging that folks have over-represented the danger, sometimes to the point that deniers actually had a more accurate forecast of the future.

This is a myth.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6363
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby ucim » Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:23 am UTC

sardia wrote:The rich countries benefit, and survive it. The poor countries suffer. That's the way it's always been.
That misses the point. Russia wins, the US loses. Now look at what Putin wants. Look at what Putin wants the US to do. Look at what the US has been doing for the last ten or so years. Look at what the US is doing now. Look at who made that decision.

I wonder why.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Thesh and 12 guests