ok, you know I've been modelling climate change for years, right? [and my models use a 'sum over all possibles' method which gives a better result as time goes on].
So, climatic swings, aka heat waves were an expected part as the baseline temperature shifts upwards. Thing is, the periodicity decreases, and the max-highs get higher, resulting in what is essentially one long heat wave starting around 2030, [with peaks of course]. IOW, in places we're going to see what are maximum temperatures now, become the new baseline normal, with even more extreme highs [60-90 degrees C] on a regular basis.
Or to put it another way... for everyone living within the near-tropical to equatorial regions... welcome to the kiln.
Everyone outside that, expect a lot of refugees, because a big chunk of our planetary surface is about to slowly become uninhabitable.
In a slightly longer version, yes, but not for long... there are a number of creatures that can survive exposure to those sorts of temperatures, and keep their core body temp at normal. The sixty-four million dollar question being, can they do so for long enough to survive through an entire day? [and will the night time temps be low enough?]
Honestly, I doubt many could, but there might be some. Whether their species could survive the degree of environmental destruction days of baking heat will bring.. I very much doubt that.
>> In a slightly longer version, yes, but not for long... there are a number of creatures that can survive exposure to those sorts of temperatures, and keep their core body temp at normal. <<
Depends on their strategy. For examples, creatures that burrow or estivate have a much higher chance of survival than those who seek shade. But they still have to find food, reproduce, etc. eventually.
>> The sixty-four million dollar question being, can they do so for long enough to survive through an entire day? [and will the night time temps be low enough?] <<
I note that it's much easier adapting to one extreme than two or more. Heat can be handled. Both heat and cold greatly reduce the number of species that can cope. This a problem I'm facing here because the highs are hotter but the lows aren't much less cold. Storms are worse, which means I have to account for wind and ice damage more. We have more droughts, but we're on reclaimed swampland, and sometimes it rains like fuck and floods. I freaked the first time we had a flood in summer. O_O
>>Honestly, I doubt many could, but there might be some. Whether their species could survive the degree of environmental destruction days of baking heat will bring.. I very much doubt that.<<
Life is stubborn. Some species always survive. We just lose a lot of diversity. (Thanks, humanity, you're a comet.) Generalists such as rats and cockroaches are robust and adaptive. Species already living in harsh conditions have an edge over those in gentle ones. Desert species will probably survive; rainforest ones, probably not. Many will survive by moving along with the shifting zones. This is easier for animals than for most plants, and again, it favors the less picky.
I have sadly made a rule that any well-established plant killed by climate conditions will not be replaced by the same thing. I'll try a different species. I understand stand-replacing events. I will try to help Gaia frob around to see what fits here now, but I'm not going to keep pushing for something that's so marginal. I do, however, have a thriving model ecosystem despite the challenges. \o/
Some desert creatures can. Not a lot, though. It will push populations to move or adapt. However, extremophiles may find a world full of wide-open, recently cleared niches waiting for him!
... I don't think Venusforming Earth is a good idea.
I know that feel, bro. *hugs* I've been warning people about climate change and sundry other foolishness since I could talk. Several decades later, they haven't listened. My activism is about down to justifying my right to stand in the Foyer Ever After and say, "I fucking TOLD YOU SO."
>> ok, you know I've been modelling climate change for years, right? [and my models use a 'sum over all possibles' method which gives a better result as time goes on].<<
I believe you've mentioned the practice, but perhaps not the method.
>>So, climatic swings, aka heat waves were an expected part as the baseline temperature shifts upwards.<<
Clearly. Just in my lifetime, central Illinois has shifted from Zone 5b to Zone 6a. I noticed this a few years before the Arbor Day Foundation released their updated map, and about a decade before the USDA finally admitted it.
>> Thing is, the periodicity decreases, and the max-highs get higher, resulting in what is essentially one long heat wave starting around 2030, [with peaks of course].<<
It's the same with rainfall. People keep yammering about drought. I have tried and tried to tell them, drought doesn't mean "a while without rain." It means "dramatically less rain than normal for that area." In a rainforest where it rains every afternoon, three dry days is a drought that will knock leaves off the trees. In some deserts, nothing even notices until it's been several years. But humans squall about drought as soon as dry weather starts impacting them.
Look guys, it's not a drought, it's the new norm and it's only going to get worse. You miss the rain? Too bad. Bitch done left you and she ain't comin' back. You howlin' after her taillights won't make a difference.
>> IOW, in places we're going to see what are maximum temperatures now, become the new baseline normal, with even more extreme highs [60-90 degrees C] on a regular basis. <<
Yeesh.
>> Or to put it another way... for everyone living within the near-tropical to equatorial regions... welcome to the kiln.<<
Those areas have some familiarity with killing heat. Not enough to exceed the species survival envelope, of course, but enough to recognize when they're in danger and take action (if possible). Heat waves run a risk of fatalities when they hit places that have not previously experienced life-threatening levels, which is starting to happen.
I have seen maps related to global warming which show everything up to around the mid-temperate zone (including the lower 2/3 of USA) becoming uninhabitably hot within about 150-200 years.
And that doesn't count areas rendered uninhabitable for other reasons such as rising oceans (goodbye to most of the coastal USA, about half the population's home, and almost ALL of its most valuable property), more violent storms (same area), wildfires (overlaps heat and drought footprint), plagues (chiefly tropical diseases expanding north), and so forth.
>> Everyone outside that, expect a lot of refugees, because a big chunk of our planetary surface is about to slowly become uninhabitable.<<
I wrote about that some years ago in relation to large-scale population movements caused by climate change. Among my examples were villages in China and Alaska. I called it "habitat foreclosure."
This is one of the things about earth life that horrifies me. My species has its own mess going on, but one of our few bright points is that (for the most part) we at least knew how to take care of our own planet. A lot of us could live for centuries, so we *had* to.
At the moment I am wearing a short-lived monkeysuit. This does not condense my sense of time very much. I watch people put nuclear waste that will be radioactive for 50,000 to 150,000 years into barrels predicted to last 100 (possibly) to 10,000 (I doubt it) years, and I point out that this is not a permanent solution. They just blink at me. To them, it's a good solution if it solves the problem for the duration of their job or medium-term attention (say 5 years) and a permanent one if it outlives them (typically 25-50 years for deciders, maximum monkeyspan ~100).
The extent to which people are willing to ignore consequences so long as it doesn't immediately impact *them* will never cease to amaze me. Then I remember the person who suggested stupidity as a population control mechanism. I can believe it, but the way things are stacked here only means that the most vulnerable populations end up getting hit, not the people who've actually earned that lesson. :/
... I remember watching the levels of litter increase in the ocean, year after year, when I was a kid. It's one of the reasons I stopped swimming. The people who were actually causing the problem didn't have to live in it or personally see the effects. Whenever this topic comes up I get reminded of that.
>> The extent to which people are willing to ignore consequences so long as it doesn't immediately impact *them* will never cease to amaze me.<<
Yyyyyeah.
>>Then I remember the person who suggested stupidity as a population control mechanism. I can believe it, <<
It is that, but it's a very crude one.
Like I said, this explains a lot about Drake's equation.
>> but the way things are stacked here only means that the most vulnerable populations end up getting hit, not the people who've actually earned that lesson. :/ <<
That's a classic example of what happens when consequences are divorced from actions. The actions usually don't change, no matter how much it hurts other people. >_<
>> ... I remember watching the levels of litter increase in the ocean, year after year, when I was a kid. It's one of the reasons I stopped swimming. The people who were actually causing the problem didn't have to live in it or personally see the effects. Whenever this topic comes up I get reminded of that.<<
Yeesh. I've had that kind of experience. Now the Gulf has oil toxins (plus chemicals) and the Pacific has radioactive effluvia from Fukushima. Not things I'd want to swim in or eat out of. :(
Yeah, but it still SNOWS - sometimes HEAVILY - which proves that global warming is a myth invented by economically weak people that damages economically hyperpowerful people, and, in spite of it being completely and utterly false, has gained traction to the point that it's settled science, which just PROVES how deep the conspiracy is!
Or something like that. It hurts my brain to try to understand that crap.
Except for the part where rich people who really shoulder the risk are perfectly well aware of climate change, Oklahoma earthquakes, and the Cascadian inundation zone. That would be the insurers, who often make sure nobody can get insurance in places they will definitely need it. Because those disasters are expensive, and they don't want to pay for it. Either the prices rise until nobody can afford it, or they simply refuse to sell certain types of insurance in certain areas, and that type of damage isn't covered under other policies.
Follow the money. And sometimes the real clue isn't in buying or selling, it's in the refusals.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2017-06-25 10:56 am (UTC)http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/06/22/impacts-and-infrastructure-in-extreme-heat
(no subject)
Date: 2017-06-25 12:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2017-06-25 12:19 pm (UTC)I hate being right.
ok, you know I've been modelling climate change for years, right? [and my models use a 'sum over all possibles' method which gives a better result as time goes on].
So, climatic swings, aka heat waves were an expected part as the baseline temperature shifts upwards. Thing is, the periodicity decreases, and the max-highs get higher, resulting in what is essentially one long heat wave starting around 2030, [with peaks of course]. IOW, in places we're going to see what are maximum temperatures now, become the new baseline normal, with even more extreme highs [60-90 degrees C] on a regular basis.
Or to put it another way... for everyone living within the near-tropical to equatorial regions... welcome to the kiln.
Everyone outside that, expect a lot of refugees, because a big chunk of our planetary surface is about to slowly become uninhabitable.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-06-25 01:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2017-06-25 01:41 pm (UTC)In a slightly longer version, yes, but not for long... there are a number of creatures that can survive exposure to those sorts of temperatures, and keep their core body temp at normal. The sixty-four million dollar question being, can they do so for long enough to survive through an entire day? [and will the night time temps be low enough?]
Honestly, I doubt many could, but there might be some. Whether their species could survive the degree of environmental destruction days of baking heat will bring.. I very much doubt that.
Thoughts
Date: 2017-06-26 06:30 am (UTC)Depends on their strategy. For examples, creatures that burrow or estivate have a much higher chance of survival than those who seek shade. But they still have to find food, reproduce, etc. eventually.
>> The sixty-four million dollar question being, can they do so for long enough to survive through an entire day? [and will the night time temps be low enough?] <<
I note that it's much easier adapting to one extreme than two or more. Heat can be handled. Both heat and cold greatly reduce the number of species that can cope. This a problem I'm facing here because the highs are hotter but the lows aren't much less cold. Storms are worse, which means I have to account for wind and ice damage more. We have more droughts, but we're on reclaimed swampland, and sometimes it rains like fuck and floods. I freaked the first time we had a flood in summer. O_O
>>Honestly, I doubt many could, but there might be some. Whether their species could survive the degree of environmental destruction days of baking heat will bring.. I very much doubt that.<<
Life is stubborn. Some species always survive. We just lose a lot of diversity. (Thanks, humanity, you're a comet.) Generalists such as rats and cockroaches are robust and adaptive. Species already living in harsh conditions have an edge over those in gentle ones. Desert species will probably survive; rainforest ones, probably not. Many will survive by moving along with the shifting zones. This is easier for animals than for most plants, and again, it favors the less picky.
I have sadly made a rule that any well-established plant killed by climate conditions will not be replaced by the same thing. I'll try a different species. I understand stand-replacing events. I will try to help Gaia frob around to see what fits here now, but I'm not going to keep pushing for something that's so marginal. I do, however, have a thriving model ecosystem despite the challenges. \o/
Yes...
Date: 2017-06-26 06:20 am (UTC)... I don't think Venusforming Earth is a good idea.
Thoughts
Date: 2017-06-25 05:33 pm (UTC)I know that feel, bro. *hugs* I've been warning people about climate change and sundry other foolishness since I could talk. Several decades later, they haven't listened. My activism is about down to justifying my right to stand in the Foyer Ever After and say, "I fucking TOLD YOU SO."
>> ok, you know I've been modelling climate change for years, right? [and my models use a 'sum over all possibles' method which gives a better result as time goes on].<<
I believe you've mentioned the practice, but perhaps not the method.
>>So, climatic swings, aka heat waves were an expected part as the baseline temperature shifts upwards.<<
Clearly. Just in my lifetime, central Illinois has shifted from Zone 5b to Zone 6a. I noticed this a few years before the Arbor Day Foundation released their updated map, and about a decade before the USDA finally admitted it.
>> Thing is, the periodicity decreases, and the max-highs get higher, resulting in what is essentially one long heat wave starting around 2030, [with peaks of course].<<
It's the same with rainfall. People keep yammering about drought. I have tried and tried to tell them, drought doesn't mean "a while without rain." It means "dramatically less rain than normal for that area." In a rainforest where it rains every afternoon, three dry days is a drought that will knock leaves off the trees. In some deserts, nothing even notices until it's been several years. But humans squall about drought as soon as dry weather starts impacting them.
Look guys, it's not a drought, it's the new norm and it's only going to get worse. You miss the rain? Too bad. Bitch done left you and she ain't comin' back. You howlin' after her taillights won't make a difference.
>> IOW, in places we're going to see what are maximum temperatures now, become the new baseline normal, with even more extreme highs [60-90 degrees C] on a regular basis. <<
Yeesh.
>> Or to put it another way... for everyone living within the near-tropical to equatorial regions... welcome to the kiln.<<
Those areas have some familiarity with killing heat. Not enough to exceed the species survival envelope, of course, but enough to recognize when they're in danger and take action (if possible). Heat waves run a risk of fatalities when they hit places that have not previously experienced life-threatening levels, which is starting to happen.
I have seen maps related to global warming which show everything up to around the mid-temperate zone (including the lower 2/3 of USA) becoming uninhabitably hot within about 150-200 years.
And that doesn't count areas rendered uninhabitable for other reasons such as rising oceans (goodbye to most of the coastal USA, about half the population's home, and almost ALL of its most valuable property), more violent storms (same area), wildfires (overlaps heat and drought footprint), plagues (chiefly tropical diseases expanding north), and so forth.
>> Everyone outside that, expect a lot of refugees, because a big chunk of our planetary surface is about to slowly become uninhabitable.<<
I wrote about that some years ago in relation to large-scale population movements caused by climate change. Among my examples were villages in China and Alaska. I called it "habitat foreclosure."
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2017-06-25 11:43 pm (UTC)A lot of us could live for centuries, so we *had* to.
- Ari
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2017-06-26 02:34 am (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2017-06-26 03:54 am (UTC)Then I remember the person who suggested stupidity as a population control mechanism. I can believe it, but the way things are stacked here only means that the most vulnerable populations end up getting hit, not the people who've actually earned that lesson. :/
... I remember watching the levels of litter increase in the ocean, year after year, when I was a kid. It's one of the reasons I stopped swimming. The people who were actually causing the problem didn't have to live in it or personally see the effects. Whenever this topic comes up I get reminded of that.
- Ari
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2017-06-26 04:40 am (UTC)Yyyyyeah.
>>Then I remember the person who suggested stupidity as a population control mechanism. I can believe it, <<
It is that, but it's a very crude one.
Like I said, this explains a lot about Drake's equation.
>> but the way things are stacked here only means that the most vulnerable populations end up getting hit, not the people who've actually earned that lesson. :/ <<
That's a classic example of what happens when consequences are divorced from actions. The actions usually don't change, no matter how much it hurts other people. >_<
>> ... I remember watching the levels of litter increase in the ocean, year after year, when I was a kid. It's one of the reasons I stopped swimming. The people who were actually causing the problem didn't have to live in it or personally see the effects. Whenever this topic comes up I get reminded of that.<<
Yeesh. I've had that kind of experience. Now the Gulf has oil toxins (plus chemicals) and the Pacific has radioactive effluvia from Fukushima. Not things I'd want to swim in or eat out of. :(
(no subject)
Date: 2017-06-29 02:46 pm (UTC)Or something like that. It hurts my brain to try to understand that crap.
Well...
Date: 2017-06-29 06:19 pm (UTC)Follow the money. And sometimes the real clue isn't in buying or selling, it's in the refusals.