|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 26 2022 15:18 smille wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 04:05 Slydie wrote:On September 25 2022 15:22 EnDeR_ wrote:
Mass migration is a problem that is here to stay and likely to get worse once climate breakdown gets going seriously in the next couple of decades. We are going to have to make a choice of whether we want to help or not.
What we have here though is a large fraction of people that do not want to help but because saying no to asylum seekers with horrible stories makes you look bad, they'd rather break the system so they can't ever get in. I am not worried about the "climate breakdown" at all. We are both amazing at growing food and transporting it around, and we'll only get better in the future. Mind you, the US is filled with Europeans because they migrated in millions from around the time the "global warming" started. A colder climate is arguably much worse than a warmer one, we'll see... Surely, I’m misreading something here or not getting the sarcasm. Your use of quotation marks seems to imply that you deny man-made global warming. Or that, even if it existed, it can’t be a climate breakdown because in your place global cooling would be worse?
I think they are differentiating between global warming and the effects of it. They are saying they don't think it will cause a food shortage.
|
On September 26 2022 15:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 15:18 smille wrote:On September 26 2022 04:05 Slydie wrote:On September 25 2022 15:22 EnDeR_ wrote:
Mass migration is a problem that is here to stay and likely to get worse once climate breakdown gets going seriously in the next couple of decades. We are going to have to make a choice of whether we want to help or not.
What we have here though is a large fraction of people that do not want to help but because saying no to asylum seekers with horrible stories makes you look bad, they'd rather break the system so they can't ever get in. I am not worried about the "climate breakdown" at all. We are both amazing at growing food and transporting it around, and we'll only get better in the future. Mind you, the US is filled with Europeans because they migrated in millions from around the time the "global warming" started. A colder climate is arguably much worse than a warmer one, we'll see... Surely, I’m misreading something here or not getting the sarcasm. Your use of quotation marks seems to imply that you deny man-made global warming. Or that, even if it existed, it can’t be a climate breakdown because in your place global cooling would be worse? I think they are differentiating between global warming and the effects of it. They are saying they don't think it will cause a food shortage.
Thanks for explaining. Anyhow, with world hunger and food sovereignty being very relevant topics, I have my doubts we are indeed sufficiently “amazing at growing and transporting food”. Unless what is meant is, that wealthy countries are somewhat good at providing their populations with whatever they demand. While entirely ignoring that large parts of the world cannot do so now, and less so when temperature rises further.
Hence, I asked if there was some underlying sarcasm because otherwise the provided perspective was rather uninformed/unreflected/inhuman.
|
There are two effects of global warming, one of which is predictable and one of which is not.
The first one is obviously the overall warming of the planet. This will cause the arable land to move towards the poles, which is of course disruptive to those who live close to the equator, but will benefit those further north who currently live in tundra, like Canada and Russia.
The other one is that weather patterns become more extreme. That is bad for everyone involved and is really the bigger problem.
|
On September 26 2022 17:46 gobbledydook wrote:
There are two effects of global warming, one of which is predictable and one of which is not.
The first one is obviously the overall warming of the planet. This will cause the arable land to move towards the poles, which is of course disruptive to those who live close to the equator, but will benefit those further north who currently live in tundra, like Canada and Russia.
The other one is that weather patterns become more extreme. That is bad for everyone involved and is really the bigger problem.
And since the former effect you describe is predictable and will be beneficial to some regions (mostly in terms of food production), do you think the benefits will outweigh the downsides? Or that folks in the privileged zones should at least not worry themselves too much with reducing global warming?
|
I think a third aspect is that change in climate is a bad thing in itself. Because people have adapted to the current situation. Any massive change leads to massive problems, even if it could theoratically be a net positive, simply because it breaks the stuff that is adapted to the current situation.
|
Norway28702 Posts
I mean, even if the global food output stays the same, assuming that the new arable areas are as big/efficient as the ones we lose (tbh I have no idea to what degree this is the case, but hypothetically I could picture it being true), people tend to live in the more arable areas, and 9-10 digit numbers of people having to relocate is bound to create a whole lot of political and societal chaos.
My understanding is that a particularly big issue is the weather patterns, though. Not 'colder' or 'warmer', but that there's a very strong correlation between precipitation and where people live.
Like - you can look at this map: (precipitation)
and this map: (population density)
![[image loading]](https://geospatialmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/world-map1.jpg)
and while they're not exact matches, pretty much all the redder areas on the planet on the population map are green/turquoise on the precipitation map. This, to my understanding, is where climate change might represent the biggest short-term threat, because this precipitation map is likely to change rather quickly, both through introducing droughts into places that used to get just enough rainfall, and through introducing violent floods into places that used to have a lot - but a manageable amount of rainfall.
Here's a picture I just found - showing predicted changes at +2 degree increase. Parts of India/Pakistan gets flooded, the populated parts of northern africa experiences more drought, southern europe and central america likewise. I'm not sure if Sahara getting a big % increase will really be impactful. Either way, compare this third map to the map over population density and there are a lot of highly populated places experiencing a 20% change in either direction - and that's enough to occasionally be highly impactful.
|
No matter how you cut it, mass migration will occur. To be fair, it will also happen at a time when most industrialised nations are going to need younger workers to support our aging populations, so it is not necessarily a bad thing.
The point I'm trying to make is that we are going to have to decide whether we want to let people in or not, but people are going to be at our doorstep for the foreseeable future. This problem isn't going away and is only going to get worse. I personally believe (as an immigrant) that immigration is a good thing, we bring in a lot more than we take away -- but a large fraction of the population does not see it that way.
|
On September 26 2022 19:05 smille wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2022 17:46 gobbledydook wrote:
There are two effects of global warming, one of which is predictable and one of which is not.
The first one is obviously the overall warming of the planet. This will cause the arable land to move towards the poles, which is of course disruptive to those who live close to the equator, but will benefit those further north who currently live in tundra, like Canada and Russia.
The other one is that weather patterns become more extreme. That is bad for everyone involved and is really the bigger problem. And since the former effect you describe is predictable and will be beneficial to some regions (mostly in terms of food production), do you think the benefits will outweigh the downsides? Or that folks in the privileged zones should at least not worry themselves too much with reducing global warming?
I mean that we have to do something about it, but if we can't, which is most likely because there is still no consensus to adopt the painful measures to stop the warming, then we probably should be looking to adapt to the changes.
|
United States43186 Posts
On September 26 2022 17:46 gobbledydook wrote:
There are two effects of global warming, one of which is predictable and one of which is not.
The first one is obviously the overall warming of the planet. This will cause the arable land to move towards the poles, which is of course disruptive to those who live close to the equator, but will benefit those further north who currently live in tundra, like Canada and Russia.
The other one is that weather patterns become more extreme. That is bad for everyone involved and is really the bigger problem.
The first will disrupt everyone. Plants are part of a broader ecosystem that has developed with certain assumptions regarding climate. You can’t pick up the entire ecosystem and transplant it 500 miles north when the weather changes. There’s bees and shit involved. Migratory patterns. Soil cultures.
|
Humans have cut down enormous forests and replaced them with our own crops which were all heavily modified compared to their natural counterparts.
Species from the other side of the world are spread all over, often turning existing ecosystems upside down, ants, rats, crabs, insects...
But a couple of degrees more heat is the REAL ecological disaster we caused.
Sorry, I am not buying it.
Wars and political unrest is and will be a much more common cause of mass migration.
|
Not to mention the extension of habitats for things like mosquitos, they’re gonna see their habitation expand way north.
|
I don't think a lot of people appreciate the scale and immediacy of the related water shortages.
Water scarcity affects roughly 40% of the world's population and, according to predictions by the United Nations and the World Bank, drought could put up to 700 million people at risk of displacement by 2030. People like van der Heijden are concerned about what that could lead to.
The water wars are coming, at least according to the precogs.
It's a complicated picture, but this ability to see links between the seemingly disparate has informed Iceland's work with the Dutch government-funded Water, Peace and Security (WPS) partnership, a group of six American and European NGOs (including the Pacific Institute and the World Resources Institute). They've developed a Global Early Warning Tool, which uses machine learning to predict conflicts before they happen. It combines data about rainfall, crop failures, population density, wealth, agricultural production, levels of corruption, droughts, and flooding, among many other sources of data to produce conflict warnings. They are displayed on a red-and-orange Mercator projection down to the level of administrative districts. Currently it is warning of around 2,000 potential conflict hotspots, with an accuracy rate of 86%.
www.bbc.com
|
United States43186 Posts
On September 27 2022 03:41 Slydie wrote:
Humans have cut down enormous forests and replaced them with our own crops which were all heavily modified compared to their natural counterparts.
Species from the other side of the world are spread all over, often turning existing ecosystems upside down, ants, rats, crabs, insects...
But a couple of degrees more heat is the REAL ecological disaster we caused.
Sorry, I am not buying it.
Wars and political unrest is and will be a much more common cause of mass migration.
A few degrees more heat is quite a lot of heat buddy. Like we’re talking substantially more energy imparted than if we just nuked the soil a bunch.
The energy required to heat the planet is staggering. A few degrees is a crazy amount.
|
Canada10567 Posts
On September 27 2022 03:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2022 03:41 Slydie wrote:
Humans have cut down enormous forests and replaced them with our own crops which were all heavily modified compared to their natural counterparts.
Species from the other side of the world are spread all over, often turning existing ecosystems upside down, ants, rats, crabs, insects...
But a couple of degrees more heat is the REAL ecological disaster we caused.
Sorry, I am not buying it.
Wars and political unrest is and will be a much more common cause of mass migration. A few degrees more heat is quite a lot of heat buddy. Like we’re talking substantially more energy imparted than if we just nuked the soil a bunch. The energy required to heat the planet is staggering. A few degrees is a crazy amount.
I've done the math at some point on TL, but the amount of energy required to heat the atmosphere by 2C is equivalent to several hiroshima's per square kilometer, all going into heating the atmosphere. Not including the oceans or land which would take much more than that to heat up.
You'd glass the world long before you could notably heat up the atmosphere with nukes.
|
|
|
On September 27 2022 04:22 JimmiC wrote:
I find it strange that the climate change deniers basic point used to be "its not happening" and now it is "it is happening so we should just learn to live with it and not do anything". For some reason they have come to conclusion that they were wrong, but not to the conclusion that they should listen to those who were right. It is like accepting you are the frog in the boil water and not wanting to turn down the temp because of inconvenience.
Because the core point was never anything about the climate.
The core point was that they don't want stuff to change. They like driving big cars, they like an economy run on fossile fuels, and so forth.
They accept any reasoning that leads them to the conclusion that they don't need to change anything.
|
On September 27 2022 03:41 Slydie wrote:
Humans have cut down enormous forests and replaced them with our own crops which were all heavily modified compared to their natural counterparts.
Species from the other side of the world are spread all over, often turning existing ecosystems upside down, ants, rats, crabs, insects...
But a couple of degrees more heat is the REAL ecological disaster we caused.
Sorry, I am not buying it.
Wars and political unrest is and will be a much more common cause of mass migration.
Wtf, people are already migrating because they suffer at home.
Millions upon millions are experiencing hunger each day.
Warmer planet equals more severe weather equals more food losses.
It's such a simple calculation.
You're fucking around and you will find out. I've had dengue fever once and am not at all inclined on its host becoming home in Germany. But that's one tiny example what a couple of degrees can bring.
You even state how rodents can upset ecosystems. That's what can happen globally as viability zones shift. Have you tried explaining a tree that it's a bit too warm for him now and that he's supposed to pack his things and go off to where he's better off? Fuck all they're just gonna die.
You know how long a tree takes to mature? We already have to nurse the trees of our future cities and woods, but we don't really know how they look like because of climate change and the impossibility of predicting how species will fare in their new neighborhood.
It's not a fucking suprise that the whole IPCC report is hundreds upon hundreds of pages.
It's a big fucking problem.
|
Norway28702 Posts
On September 27 2022 03:41 Slydie wrote:
Humans have cut down enormous forests and replaced them with our own crops which were all heavily modified compared to their natural counterparts.
Species from the other side of the world are spread all over, often turning existing ecosystems upside down, ants, rats, crabs, insects...
But a couple of degrees more heat is the REAL ecological disaster we caused.
Sorry, I am not buying it.
Wars and political unrest is and will be a much more common cause of mass migration.
Wars and political unrest will be caused by climate change. Famines create instability unlike anything else. As a Norwegian, I recommend the book 2070 by Bjørn Samset - one of our leading climate researchers (he's also one of the main authors of the IPCC's sixth assessment report, which is also a must-read for any scientifically literate climate skeptic). He's not entirely pessimistic, in that he still maintains hope that we can manage to cut emissions fast enough to mitigate the worst consequences, but he also explains the science behind climate change in a very thorough manner - and details that the consequences of inaction are certain to be disastrous, while also noting that certain changes have already happened, and that even if we do everything right from this point onward and do manage to mitigate the worst consequences, some very highly populated parts of the planet will feel severe consequences of climate change in the coming decades.
|
On September 27 2022 04:22 JimmiC wrote:
I find it strange that the climate change deniers basic point used to be "its not happening" and now it is "it is happening so we should just learn to live with it and not do anything". For some reason they have come to conclusion that they were wrong, but not to the conclusion that they should listen to those who were right. It is like accepting you are the frog in the boil water and not wanting to turn down the temp because of inconvenience.
There was also the "it's happening but isn't caused by us" phase between those, and every time they moved from one to the next they developed complete amnesia about ever being in the previous phase, it's exhausting.
|
As a climate scientist I know likes to put it, there’s nothing wrong with being at the top of the Grand Canyon, and there’s nothing wrong with being at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. But you shouldn’t go from the top to the bottom by jumping. Similarly, there’s nothing inherently wrong with Earth being, say, 4F hotter, but we don’t want to go from here to there over the course of a few decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hassan-Dashtti/publication/317825494/figure/fig2/AS:508437542576129@1498232364466/a-Global-Rainfall-Erosivity-map-spatial-resolution-30-arc-seconds-Erosivity-classes.png)
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Precipitation_and_climate_change.svg)
