by liberal japonicus
The Grauniad has two interesting articles that form something like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The first is about an attempt to thicken Arctic ice. Seems plausible until the section about autonomous underwater drones. Paired with that is this piece about all of the far-out geo-engineering plans that have been mooted in the past. It’s clear our world has reached the point where we need a deus ex machina/ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός. My favorite line in the last article is this.
…as the US climatologist PE Lydolph, an expert on the geography of the Soviet Union, put it: “In general, the country lacks heat.”
Discuss.
In general, the earth’s surface is getting a bit warmer. But the trouble with glittering generalities like that is that local changes may be radically different. See the temperatures in the Eastern United States this year. But that will pale in comparison to what we will see in Europe
ifwhen the Gulf Stream shuts down. I’m not sure how far eastward the impact will extend, but northern and western Europe are in for some serious chill, overall global warming notwithstanding. The medieval “Little Ice Age” may look minor ir comparison.As for Russia, global warming might be thought to make vast swathes of Siberia warmer and so more livable. But vast, basically impassible, swamps from melted permafrost may be more likely. Certainly any kind of ground transportation systems (roads and railroads) will have to be recreated from scratch.
It occurs to me that my view here is seriously parochial. I expect changes to ocean currents will have some similarly drastic impacts in, for example South Asia. If the monsoon rains don’t come, it’s gonna be ugly. But I don’t know enough to know if that is a serious possibility. Ditto what changes to rainfall paterns we will see in Africa. More rain, making the Sahel a breadbasket for the continent? Less rain, making agriculture less productive — leading to widespread starvation and like-it-or-not massive migrations? I have no clue which.
It occurs to me that my view here is seriously parochial.
I recall a scientist, relatively well respected, who argued that we couldn’t really say if climate change was bad because it might result in longer growing seasons and other effects that would benefit humankind. I personally think (and events seem to have borne this out) that this is/was a mistake, because the biggest problem with climate change is the lack of predictability and randomness that has been introduced. Because of this randomness, any benefits of climate change are pretty much wiped out by an inability to predict what the weather is actually going to be like.
I look at it as a question of entropy. Life on this planet has adapted to the prevailing climate – human development even moreso. What we have had is what could be considered order – like a neat bedroom, where everything is in its proper place and the bed is nicely made.
There are far, far fewer possible states that are orderly than there are disorderly states. If you don’t effortfully keep the room neat, it will get messy as a matter of overwhelming probability. The room will not vacillate from being messy back to being neat and back to being messy again. It will simply go from one messy state to another. The neat, orderly room will not appear by chance.
So, to me, the idea that AGW/climate change will result in something just as good or better than what humans and other species have adapted to is like expecting a room to become neat randomly and without someone making it so. There are far too many more ways for things to get f**ked up than to stay just as good or better.
Is all life going to end? No. Will it adapt over time? Yes. Will the transition suck big, stinky a**? Absolutely!