No, I mean, there's a shit ton of methane producing bacteria in the ground. Someone told me like.. 4 degrees Celsius warming a year scenarios and an unviable biosphere within 10 years are a possibility.
Is that true? Can't find it online
It's not just siberia.
Don't google the permafrost in the canadian arctic shield if you value your sanity.
Imagine the most rotten ground ever and have it get warm. It's only saving grace has been the glacial temperatures for the last 15,000 years but if siberia and the canadian shield "melts" it's super bad news.
SUPER SUPER SUPER bad news.
Like, queue up the climate change sci-fi fixes like sun shields, news.
It's already starting to melt
There was an article about it last week. Is that what you're referring to? They're seeing thermokarst and vegetation growing where there was permafrost 10 years ago, which means it's warmer there than it has been in the last 5000 years
It's melting so fast they're having trouble studying it, 70 years before schedule based on warming predictions
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
We're already seeing the human rights consequences of climate change with the refugee crisis in Europe and the concentration camps and shit here at home. Climate is driving at least some of these refugees and asylum seekers from their homes, not all of them granted, but enough to make an impact already, and it seems like pretty damn near everyone is shitting the bed
Not to be an asshole, but that was kind of expected. Any deterioration of social progress is probably gonna lead to social regression and all that entails, which is just a part of why we need to address this even more.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Not to be an asshole, but that was kind of expected. Any deterioration of social progress is probably gonna lead to social regression and all that entails, which is just a part of why we need to address this even more.
Yeah, I agree.
Just putting it up for the strength of the language.
Namely that any other humanitarian work is worthless if it doesn't address climate change.
Well Ben Shapiro says they should have just sold their climate change ravaged homes and move somewhere better. Surely that works for everyone, right?
Yes sell property (that they don't own cause they rent) worth nothing (cause nothing grows there anymore or its underwater) to someone willing to buy (which doesn't exist because who the fuck wants it).
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Ill tell you who would buy that property, all the people who cant afford to live anywhere else because now good safe land is too expensive. Just like what is happening now, only that with more floods/draughts etc.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
'Money talks' has already been happening here. This is an enlightening video on the subject. The gist is one town had money to build a higher levee (flood wall) and in doing so fucked over a neighboring town and adversely affected everyone downriver to a degree too.
I live in Missouri near the Mississippi, not close enough to be personally affected by this, but I can see firsthand a smaller scale of the above. A town on our side, Cape Girardeau, is a big town with money and has a flood wall to protect the area of town right by the river bank. East Cape Girardeau is a very small town on the other side of the river, in Illinois, no wall. East Cape is currently flooded to the point the bridge over the river is closed to traffic; the farmland there are now lakes to the point that the wind is creating genuine wave patterns; there's footage of a truck trying to make the route getting pummeled by water and if you didnt know where it was you'd swear he was by the ocean. The residents, with the help of the national guard, have been trying to save their homes but it's a losing battle.
Southern France was at like 115 degrees today (F, obviously). Completely unprecedented and super dangerous because most of France lacks air conditioning.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
I bet it’s also much more humid than say Arizona when it’s 115 there. High temperatures plus humidity is deadly.
Southern France was at like 115 degrees today (F, obviously). Completely unprecedented and super dangerous because most of France lacks air conditioning.
Southern France was at like 115 degrees today (F, obviously). Completely unprecedented and super dangerous because most of France lacks air conditioning.
Oh right, Chennai, India is basically out of water. Six million people live there.
The crisis is here.
I see stories like this, and I look around at my relatively decadent standard of living - abundant food, water, electricity, internet, toys - and wonder when the pitchforks will show up. I feel like it's selfish to worry about taking a hit when I have so much more than so many other people, but dammit I'm human and I can't help feeling scared.
Oh right, Chennai, India is basically out of water. Six million people live there.
The crisis is here.
I see stories like this, and I look around at my relatively decadent standard of living - abundant food, water, electricity, internet, toys - and wonder when the pitchforks will show up. I feel like it's selfish to worry about taking a hit when I have so much more than so many other people, but dammit I'm human and I can't help feeling scared.
A few thoughts, hopefully it doesn't sound too callous:
The human population has been growing steadily for the past 2,000 years. While we're close to reaching max capacity, we're not there yet, even if we're already past sustainability.
Societal breakdown means a lot of things, it means different things for different places, and each is going to have to deal with things in their own way. It's likely not going to be Mad Max and leather, but you may want to rewatch Blade Runner and get used to the idea of bug protein bars.
The standard of living for the average person in a first world country is the highest its ever been in human history, so count your blessing, you don't have to worry about the Mongols burning down your village, and you likely won't die of dysentery or the like.
What we're seeing is a result of systematic errors of human society over the past 100 years, there was bound to be a correction happen at some point.
It's okay to feel sad or scared about big changes, but honestly we've dodged any number of bullets over the past 100 years. Plagues, wars, famine. You can't, and shouldn't take on the "weight" of the whole world.
So the day the melt was bad was the earliest that it'd melted that much, yes. But it's dropped off since then, and last week was actually below the 1981-2010 median for a bit. Now, all it takes is a couple days to melt a ton (read: that 2012 spike), so it's never a "feel comfortable" thing, but that Greenland melt wasn't a "the sky is falling" thing I kinda felt it was.
The LA Times also just published a quite large piece about climate change as it is currently destroying much of California's coast line and the fights for and against the plans to retreat from the coast or to fold to rich people and waste money fighting a losing battle against mother Earth until said rich people die? Or something?
The coastal issue is likely not going to just be a california thing. Pretty much every coast line tends to be where wealthy people setup large houses and as sea level rises they are going to start screaming for protection when there is no real long term way to protect their houses.
How much would it cost to just buy a coal mine and pay the miners to not mine anything?
Probably wouldn't work. They'd see that as a handout, and it would stick in their stubborn pride. They want and need to "earn" their living. Their identity, often going back generations, is based on/entwined with doing that kind of work, even though it's awful and in many cases eventually lethal.
The Puritan work ethic! Dysfunctional, often exploited by those in charge, and may end up killing us all.
Then how about you just buy it and shut it down?
Based on Wikipedia there's about $30 billion dollars of coal mines a year. Certain areas like Illinois Basin increased production from 2008 - 2014 indicating it's profitable to expand capacity. It's unlikely that there is enough capital to buy not only the existing mines but also the deposits that would be profitable to mine. The quickest impact would be for the government to stop leasing federal land for coal mining which Obama started and Trump reversed.
The LA Times also just published a quite large piece about climate change as it is currently destroying much of California's coast line and the fights for and against the plans to retreat from the coast or to fold to rich people and waste money fighting a losing battle against mother Earth until said rich people die? Or something?
How much would it cost to just buy a coal mine and pay the miners to not mine anything?
Probably wouldn't work. They'd see that as a handout, and it would stick in their stubborn pride. They want and need to "earn" their living. Their identity, often going back generations, is based on/entwined with doing that kind of work, even though it's awful and in many cases eventually lethal.
The Puritan work ethic! Dysfunctional, often exploited by those in charge, and may end up killing us all.
Then how about you just buy it and shut it down?
Based on Wikipedia there's about $30 billion dollars of coal mines a year. Certain areas like Illinois Basin increased production from 2008 - 2014 indicating it's profitable to expand capacity. It's unlikely that there is enough capital to buy not only the existing mines but also the deposits that would be profitable to mine. The quickest impact would be for the government to stop leasing federal land for coal mining which Obama started and Trump reversed.
The LA Times also just published a quite large piece about climate change as it is currently destroying much of California's coast line and the fights for and against the plans to retreat from the coast or to fold to rich people and waste money fighting a losing battle against mother Earth until said rich people die? Or something?
How much would it cost to just buy a coal mine and pay the miners to not mine anything?
Probably wouldn't work. They'd see that as a handout, and it would stick in their stubborn pride. They want and need to "earn" their living. Their identity, often going back generations, is based on/entwined with doing that kind of work, even though it's awful and in many cases eventually lethal.
The Puritan work ethic! Dysfunctional, often exploited by those in charge, and may end up killing us all.
Then how about you just buy it and shut it down?
Based on Wikipedia there's about $30 billion dollars of coal mines a year. Certain areas like Illinois Basin increased production from 2008 - 2014 indicating it's profitable to expand capacity. It's unlikely that there is enough capital to buy not only the existing mines but also the deposits that would be profitable to mine. The quickest impact would be for the government to stop leasing federal land for coal mining which Obama started and Trump reversed.
The LA Times also just published a quite large piece about climate change as it is currently destroying much of California's coast line and the fights for and against the plans to retreat from the coast or to fold to rich people and waste money fighting a losing battle against mother Earth until said rich people die? Or something?
Sorry if I'm being dense, and please don't see this as a defence of rich assholes who prefer to maintain their waterfront summer home rather than give the money to people who need to eat.. But how exactly does a sea wall destroy nearby public beaches?
Edit: never mind, looked it up. Couldn't the increased adjacent wave erosion be mitigated by regulation on how the seawall are designed? Because I feel like rich people are gonna do this regardless, may as well try to make it suck less
I mean that’s the part of this that people overlook- it’s not just the climate that will kill people, it’s the wars-with-nukes over arable land and potable water that will kill everyone
I think it's overblown mostly because the only countries with "end the world" arsenals are the US and Russia. Russia honestly stands to benefit from climate change, as much as any country can. The US won't benefit but has lots of $$$ to mitigate the effects. Those kinds of resources need to be relatively near your borders to be useful. If China needs fresh water, they aren't gonna try and invade NATO countries.
Like an India/Pakistan/China war/exchange will be obviously very bad, but even if they launched everything they had at each other it wouldn't be global Armageddon. They only have about 500 warheads between them, which is about the same number of atmospheric tests that have already been conducted.
In some ways, the sooner the China-India-Pakistan nuclear war kicks off the better for the climate change battle. There's a happy thought as you go about your day.
Say, how many divisions were available to Germany in 1933? Enough to fight yet another war with France? Well obviously any concerns were overblown, then, since the world is a static place where arsenals cannot be expanded.
Also, for some odd reason, it is not comforting to know that there are 'only' 2 nations with readied doomsday arsenals as we embark into ecological circumstances that may lead to unprecedented international instability.
Nobody wins as a result of climate change. Where do you think the people in places that will be flooded or become intolerably hot - places Russia is surrounded by - will go? Do you think they'll just shrug and accept their fate?
'It isn't logical for people to go to war, because [X],' is a terrible argument given historical precedent. It wasn't terribly logical for WWI to happen over an assassinated Duke, but them's the breaks. When things get miserable, when there is economic instability, when people are being displaced, war is a likely consequence (and it hardly helps that as things worsen, the public becomes reactionary and often starts giving positions of leadership to craven ideologues).
Atmospheric testing is a ridiculous comparison because where the energy from a warhead goes matters an awful lot. America was more or less irrecoverably scarred from just two fucking buildings being knocked over; what do you suppose the consequence would be of even just half a dozen American cities being struck with hydrogen bombs? I rather doubt anything resembling democracy or western civilization would survive that.
And no, wiping India and China off the map does not actually help at all. India's footprint is 6%~, China's is in the low 30s. Per capita, these countries are doing orders of magnitude better in terms of emissions than most of the west, and even just in aggregate the USA is still easily the worst offender. Not to mention that I am rather dubious that a full scale war is going to destroy sufficient energy infrastructure to compensate for the likely spike in industrial output as different belligerents put their munitions factories to work.
The Ender on
With Love and Courage
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Sorry if I'm being dense, and please don't see this as a defence of rich assholes who prefer to maintain their waterfront summer home rather than give the money to people who need to eat.. But how exactly does a sea wall destroy nearby public beaches?
Edit: never mind, looked it up. Couldn't the increased adjacent wave erosion be mitigated by regulation on how the seawall are designed? Because I feel like rich people are gonna do this regardless, may as well try to make it suck less
The core problem is that the the beach in front of the wall goes away kinda automatically since there's no way for it to get replenished and that probably has knock on effects on neighboring beaches. I guess there might maybe be a way to mitigate some of that, but the sea is just going to keep getting higher so probably the only way to keep those beaches is to pony up the cash for truckloads of sand.
People have just become used to being masters of their domain for far too long. Unfortunately nobody informed the ocean of this fact, and I'm not sure it would care if they did.
daveNYC on
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
No, I mean, there's a shit ton of methane producing bacteria in the ground. Someone told me like.. 4 degrees Celsius warming a year scenarios and an unviable biosphere within 10 years are a possibility.
Is that true? Can't find it online
Probably shittastic but not unlivable biosphere or human extinction. The world has been a lot hotter than now in the past without total biosphere destruction (like crocodiles living in greenland hot).
Edit: sorry didn’t realize the last page was from a month ago
No, I mean, there's a shit ton of methane producing bacteria in the ground. Someone told me like.. 4 degrees Celsius warming a year scenarios and an unviable biosphere within 10 years are a possibility.
Is that true? Can't find it online
Probably shittastic but not unlivable biosphere or human extinction. The world has been a lot hotter than now in the past without total biosphere destruction (like crocodiles living in greenland hot).
That's after a millions-year long transition to that climate. No one knows what happens when things warm up quick, but crocodiles won't be booking flights to Greenland.
No, I mean, there's a shit ton of methane producing bacteria in the ground. Someone told me like.. 4 degrees Celsius warming a year scenarios and an unviable biosphere within 10 years are a possibility.
Is that true? Can't find it online
Probably shittastic but not unlivable biosphere or human extinction. The world has been a lot hotter than now in the past without total biosphere destruction (like crocodiles living in greenland hot).
That's after a millions-year long transition to that climate. No one knows what happens when things warm up quick, but crocodiles won't be booking flights to Greenland.
Thermal maxima like the Paleocene Eocene one were likely due to volcanic activity, which wouldn’t have been a gradual millions of years process, it would have been a big eruption - oops - shittons of warming process. So not much different than now.
There were some gradual warming and cooling periods, but there were also some sudden ones.
The difference between a global mass extinction and the punctuated part of "punctuated equilibrium" is all in rate. The Eocene Thermal Maximum was hotter than we are now, but took ten thousand years to wind up and we're on track to pass it before the end of the century, possibly before the half way point. The ETM sparked a mass extinction in benthic life forms and fish, but reptiles and arthropods didn't give a shit and mammals saw a lot of speciation transitions but not a lot of dead ends.
The extinction rate of land vertebrates right now is higher than it was then (though very little of that is due to climate change as yet, but climate change is starting to outpace development and exploitation as the leading cause of habitat loss, so give it another decade).
Is there a good article on the geopolitical endgame if nothing is done? I’ve read the DoD report, but I’m morbidly curious what would come after.
I’m imagining that after the huge humanitarian crisis in less developed nations and the resulting conflicts for resources in those areas, costal towns across the world abandoned, energy prices skyrocketing as cooling increases combined with Middle East conflicts, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes and tornados further increasing disasters.
I’m imaging some kind of Elysium type world where wealthier nations and/or people are relatively fine while the rest devolves into a hellish post-apocalyptic fight for dwindling resources.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Is there a good article on the geopolitical endgame if nothing is done? I’ve read the DoD report, but I’m morbidly curious what would come after.
I’m imagining that after the huge humanitarian crisis in less developed nations and the resulting conflicts for resources in those areas, costal towns across the world abandoned, energy prices skyrocketing as cooling increases combined with Middle East conflicts, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes and tornados further increasing disasters.
I’m imaging some kind of Elysium type world where wealthier nations and/or people are relatively fine while the rest devolves into a hellish post-apocalyptic fight for dwindling resources.
I'd wager more for the "good" spots to resemble modern failed states - wealthy enclaves living at a lower standard of living than now surrounded by massive slums.
The fiction novel "The Peripheral" by William Gibson is fairly involved with the atrocious misery of the latter half of this century, hardly academic but strong in Gibsonian plausibility
Is there a good article on the geopolitical endgame if nothing is done? I’ve read the DoD report, but I’m morbidly curious what would come after.
I’m imagining that after the huge humanitarian crisis in less developed nations and the resulting conflicts for resources in those areas, costal towns across the world abandoned, energy prices skyrocketing as cooling increases combined with Middle East conflicts, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes and tornados further increasing disasters.
I’m imaging some kind of Elysium type world where wealthier nations and/or people are relatively fine while the rest devolves into a hellish post-apocalyptic fight for dwindling resources.
My guess if things get to P-E thermal maxima levels is that without the rich people being fine part.
Like eventually after the dust settles humanity survives but as polar nomads for a while, eventually maybe gets some industry up again (hopefully without fossil fuels hint hint future polar nomads).
Is there a good article on the geopolitical endgame if nothing is done? I’ve read the DoD report, but I’m morbidly curious what would come after.
I’m imagining that after the huge humanitarian crisis in less developed nations and the resulting conflicts for resources in those areas, costal towns across the world abandoned, energy prices skyrocketing as cooling increases combined with Middle East conflicts, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes and tornados further increasing disasters.
I’m imaging some kind of Elysium type world where wealthier nations and/or people are relatively fine while the rest devolves into a hellish post-apocalyptic fight for dwindling resources.
My guess if things get to P-E thermal maxima levels is that without the rich people being fine part.
Like eventually after the dust settles humanity survives but as polar nomads for a while, eventually maybe gets some industry up again (hopefully without fossil fuels hint hint future polar nomads).
There are two competing mindsets about the modern wealthy. One is that they are wealthy and powerful enough to insulate them from anything short of a genocide-level event. The other is that their power is actually an ephemeral creation of modern nation states, and they end up no better or even worse off when there are no policemen and soldiers around employed by nation-states to protect them.
Posts
It's already starting to melt
There was an article about it last week. Is that what you're referring to? They're seeing thermokarst and vegetation growing where there was permafrost 10 years ago, which means it's warmer there than it has been in the last 5000 years
It's melting so fast they're having trouble studying it, 70 years before schedule based on warming predictions
This seems to be a very dire sign
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/climate-apartheid-united-nations-expert-says-human-rights-may-not-survive-crisis
Not to be an asshole, but that was kind of expected. Any deterioration of social progress is probably gonna lead to social regression and all that entails, which is just a part of why we need to address this even more.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Yeah, I agree.
Just putting it up for the strength of the language.
Namely that any other humanitarian work is worthless if it doesn't address climate change.
Yes sell property (that they don't own cause they rent) worth nothing (cause nothing grows there anymore or its underwater) to someone willing to buy (which doesn't exist because who the fuck wants it).
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I live in Missouri near the Mississippi, not close enough to be personally affected by this, but I can see firsthand a smaller scale of the above. A town on our side, Cape Girardeau, is a big town with money and has a flood wall to protect the area of town right by the river bank. East Cape Girardeau is a very small town on the other side of the river, in Illinois, no wall. East Cape is currently flooded to the point the bridge over the river is closed to traffic; the farmland there are now lakes to the point that the wind is creating genuine wave patterns; there's footage of a truck trying to make the route getting pummeled by water and if you didnt know where it was you'd swear he was by the ocean. The residents, with the help of the national guard, have been trying to save their homes but it's a losing battle.
Holy fuck.
https://mobile.twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1143195454848544769
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/in-short/heat-waves-are-on-the-rise-pik-statement
Strong Rossy wave activity leads to hear wave in Europe.
In India the heat waves reach 50° C apparently.
The crisis is here.
I see stories like this, and I look around at my relatively decadent standard of living - abundant food, water, electricity, internet, toys - and wonder when the pitchforks will show up. I feel like it's selfish to worry about taking a hit when I have so much more than so many other people, but dammit I'm human and I can't help feeling scared.
hmm 16 more cites in India are in danger of running out by 2020 yeah... It's here
A few thoughts, hopefully it doesn't sound too callous:
The human population has been growing steadily for the past 2,000 years. While we're close to reaching max capacity, we're not there yet, even if we're already past sustainability.
Societal breakdown means a lot of things, it means different things for different places, and each is going to have to deal with things in their own way. It's likely not going to be Mad Max and leather, but you may want to rewatch Blade Runner and get used to the idea of bug protein bars.
The standard of living for the average person in a first world country is the highest its ever been in human history, so count your blessing, you don't have to worry about the Mongols burning down your village, and you likely won't die of dysentery or the like.
What we're seeing is a result of systematic errors of human society over the past 100 years, there was bound to be a correction happen at some point.
It's okay to feel sad or scared about big changes, but honestly we've dodged any number of bullets over the past 100 years. Plagues, wars, famine. You can't, and shouldn't take on the "weight" of the whole world.
https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/greenland-surface-melt-extent-interactive-chart/
So the day the melt was bad was the earliest that it'd melted that much, yes. But it's dropped off since then, and last week was actually below the 1981-2010 median for a bit. Now, all it takes is a couple days to melt a ton (read: that 2012 spike), so it's never a "feel comfortable" thing, but that Greenland melt wasn't a "the sky is falling" thing I kinda felt it was.
This is something I'm struggling with myself, and yeah - it's hard.
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-sea-level-rise-california-coast/
As long as everyone else isn't forced to subsidize them, I am fine with these people throwing their money away to stop the tide.
The problem is they can stop it for a while- by diverting it and making things ever so much worse for everyone nearby.
Why wouldn't everyone else be forced to subsidize all of the infrastructure it takes for them to live where they choose?
Edit: never mind, looked it up. Couldn't the increased adjacent wave erosion be mitigated by regulation on how the seawall are designed? Because I feel like rich people are gonna do this regardless, may as well try to make it suck less
Say, how many divisions were available to Germany in 1933? Enough to fight yet another war with France? Well obviously any concerns were overblown, then, since the world is a static place where arsenals cannot be expanded.
Also, for some odd reason, it is not comforting to know that there are 'only' 2 nations with readied doomsday arsenals as we embark into ecological circumstances that may lead to unprecedented international instability.
Nobody wins as a result of climate change. Where do you think the people in places that will be flooded or become intolerably hot - places Russia is surrounded by - will go? Do you think they'll just shrug and accept their fate?
'It isn't logical for people to go to war, because [X],' is a terrible argument given historical precedent. It wasn't terribly logical for WWI to happen over an assassinated Duke, but them's the breaks. When things get miserable, when there is economic instability, when people are being displaced, war is a likely consequence (and it hardly helps that as things worsen, the public becomes reactionary and often starts giving positions of leadership to craven ideologues).
Atmospheric testing is a ridiculous comparison because where the energy from a warhead goes matters an awful lot. America was more or less irrecoverably scarred from just two fucking buildings being knocked over; what do you suppose the consequence would be of even just half a dozen American cities being struck with hydrogen bombs? I rather doubt anything resembling democracy or western civilization would survive that.
And no, wiping India and China off the map does not actually help at all. India's footprint is 6%~, China's is in the low 30s. Per capita, these countries are doing orders of magnitude better in terms of emissions than most of the west, and even just in aggregate the USA is still easily the worst offender. Not to mention that I am rather dubious that a full scale war is going to destroy sufficient energy infrastructure to compensate for the likely spike in industrial output as different belligerents put their munitions factories to work.
The core problem is that the the beach in front of the wall goes away kinda automatically since there's no way for it to get replenished and that probably has knock on effects on neighboring beaches. I guess there might maybe be a way to mitigate some of that, but the sea is just going to keep getting higher so probably the only way to keep those beaches is to pony up the cash for truckloads of sand.
People have just become used to being masters of their domain for far too long. Unfortunately nobody informed the ocean of this fact, and I'm not sure it would care if they did.
Probably shittastic but not unlivable biosphere or human extinction. The world has been a lot hotter than now in the past without total biosphere destruction (like crocodiles living in greenland hot).
Edit: sorry didn’t realize the last page was from a month ago
That's after a millions-year long transition to that climate. No one knows what happens when things warm up quick, but crocodiles won't be booking flights to Greenland.
Thermal maxima like the Paleocene Eocene one were likely due to volcanic activity, which wouldn’t have been a gradual millions of years process, it would have been a big eruption - oops - shittons of warming process. So not much different than now.
There were some gradual warming and cooling periods, but there were also some sudden ones.
The extinction rate of land vertebrates right now is higher than it was then (though very little of that is due to climate change as yet, but climate change is starting to outpace development and exploitation as the leading cause of habitat loss, so give it another decade).
I’m imagining that after the huge humanitarian crisis in less developed nations and the resulting conflicts for resources in those areas, costal towns across the world abandoned, energy prices skyrocketing as cooling increases combined with Middle East conflicts, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes and tornados further increasing disasters.
I’m imaging some kind of Elysium type world where wealthier nations and/or people are relatively fine while the rest devolves into a hellish post-apocalyptic fight for dwindling resources.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I'd wager more for the "good" spots to resemble modern failed states - wealthy enclaves living at a lower standard of living than now surrounded by massive slums.
My guess if things get to P-E thermal maxima levels is that without the rich people being fine part.
Like eventually after the dust settles humanity survives but as polar nomads for a while, eventually maybe gets some industry up again (hopefully without fossil fuels hint hint future polar nomads).
There are two competing mindsets about the modern wealthy. One is that they are wealthy and powerful enough to insulate them from anything short of a genocide-level event. The other is that their power is actually an ephemeral creation of modern nation states, and they end up no better or even worse off when there are no policemen and soldiers around employed by nation-states to protect them.