Wonder What the Scientific Consensus is for How Climate Change Will Affect Us?

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Short answer: "We'll die"

Here is an extensive scientific look at how climate change is and will be affecting us. They're calling it an "Instant Planetary Emergency"

http://www.thenation.com/article/177614/coming-instant-planetary-emergency#

 

[blknrdcllctv]

That was depressing as hell.

It's hard to believe there are still people out there (especially government officials) who think this is all hogwash.

 

[NickNitro]

Long story short, don't have kids......

 

[Doctor Evo]

That was depressing as hell.

It's hard to believe there are still people out there (especially government officials) who think this is all hogwash.

Well, a moderate level of skepticism is to be encouraged. At some point, however, the line between skepticism and denial becomes blurred. This can be extremely counterproductive and, in some cases, destructive.

Part of the problem is that people don't want to have to make the choice between short-term sacrifice and long-term sacrifice. They don't want to compromise their current standard of living, but they also don't want to believe that not doing so will lead to potentially severe consequences in the future. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Consider also that people tend to be notoriously short-sighted when it comes to bridging the conceptual gap between the present and the future. Short-term gains/benefits tend to be favored even when future consequences are much greater in magnitude/severity. This is supported by a number of studies.

So, really, this shouldn't be hard to believe at all. It's sad, yes, but it's also a rather predictable outcome.

 

[Teelie]

The article sounds like a lot of alarmist, worse-case scenario thinking. I'm not saying that climate change isn't happening or it won't be bad but the situation it's depicting is taking the worst possible outcome and declaring it as the likely end point. That also doesn't mean we don't need to make changes now but giving people this kind of "we're ****ed" report isn't an incentive to do anything if the prediction is already that it's too late to stop it.

 

[Doctor Evo]

The article sounds like a lot of alarmist, worse-case scenario thinking. I'm not saying that climate change isn't happening or it won't be bad but the situation it's depicting is taking the worst possible outcome and declaring it as the likely end point.

Agreed. Though, to be fair, the author of the article says as much in his opening statement(s).

That also doesn't mean we don't need to make changes now but giving people this kind of "we're ****ed" report isn't an incentive to do anything if the prediction is already that it's too late to stop it.

The question then becomes: will our continued trajectory make things worse?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Granted we're all going to die, but during that brief time that my house becomes ocean front property... I'm going to make out like a bandit.

 

[TheBat812]

Agreed. Though, to be fair, the author of the article says as much in his opening statement(s).

The question then becomes: will our continued trajectory make things worse?

Hey Evo, what are your thoughts on this whole scenario? seeing as your profession is a lot closer to understanding what's going on than mine, it would informative to get your opinion.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Hey Evo, what are your thoughts on this whole scenario? seeing as your profession is a lot closer to understanding what's going on than mine, it would informative to get your opinion.

You can get a pretty good idea of my take on this whole issue by taking a peek in the Politics Forum (specifically, the thread devoted to climate change and environmental issues).

In short: there IS hyperbole being thrown around, but the exaggerations are, frankly, modest. Most of the criticisms of the science of climate change are unfounded and are quite transparently motivated by political bias, usually expressed most vocally by people with little to no actual scientific background.

What most people don't understand is that we don't exist in a vacuum. Humans are extremely adaptable - we can tolerate a wide variety of temperatures and conditions. But the things that we eat, and the things that they eat, etc.? Not so much. Bottom-up ecosystem effects can have severe consequences, and this simply cannot be overstated.

Will we go extinct? I hardly think so. Will we able to support a global population of 7 billion + people under these shifting conditions? Certainly not. This means that there will be casualties. Human ingenuity will only take us so far.

The most interesting - and perhaps important - questions are these:

1) What mitigating steps can we take, and how much do they actually matter (this was brought up earlier)?

and

2) Over what timescales will these changes occur? As a biologist, particularly one interested in evolutionary processes, you learn rather quickly that this is a critical factor for determining whether lineages will be able to adapt and persist. The quicker the change, the more grim the outlook.

So, I guess the short answer is: it's not the end of the world or even the end of us, but it may be the end of life as we know it - though you and I will probably be dead before the **** really hits the fan.