[namaria]

We are collectively in full on denial about the consequences of climate change. Only directly accountable organizations like militaries and insurers are actually acting on the data. People are still buying cheap stuff from overseas, traveling and generally spending energy like there's no tomorrow. We will only see real changes in behavior and policy once coastal flooding in major metropolises becomes a reality a few decades down the line.

[concordDance]

Why do people keep bringing up coastal flooding? Its one of the smallest and least concerning climate change effects.

The 10cm sea level rise over the next few decades isnt very relevant and the speculation about increased storms is highly location dependent and low confidence.

Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise.

Its also very degrowth to conflate energy use with CO2 emissions. Many types of energy use are time flexible (or, like AC, focused on sunny days) and thus can use solar power.

[Faaak]

Because it will remove plenty of land https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z and displace plenty of people

[mariusor]

Building dams and dykes is not new engineering. Maybe the scale of covering enough of the shore lines with them will be challenging, but it will probably be less disruptive than having to displace the 190M people the abstract cites.

[ghastmaster]

> Far more problematic are the effects on farming of a degree rise.

Temperature and co2 increases are beneficial to plant growth. What is the problematic aspect you are referring to?

[peterpost2]

Extreme rain, extreme drought. And that degree rise is on average it's going to be much worse in some place.

Just look at the production if coffee recently, its a catastrophe.

[soco]

I find quite interesting the consequence this failing coffee crops reality brought to us: the rise in aromated coffees. Caramel coffee, tiramisu coffee, dark chocolate with cherries coffee, anything works if it can salvage an otherwise bad crop.

PS coffee like many other plants can't be farmed "just 100km higher up" or something. There may be easier solutions for some crops, but the reality is, the climate is not simply shifting a few kilometers up, but just changes completely so finding another suitable spot - geographically politically and all, is a real challenge.

[ghastmaster]

Sure there will be localized events, but on average, rising temperature and co2 will improve farming world-wide. Hence:

For the 2024-25 financial year, India has exported 2.2 lakh tonnes of coffee, up from 1.91 lakh tonnes in the same period last year, showcasing a 15 percent increase.

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/money/indian-coffee-exp...

[polotics]

What so you got one data point, this is your model? Just please read the IPCC reports, you will find nice maps.

[ghastmaster]

Have a link?

[pjc50]

Most plants have a range of acceptable temperatures. Drought is also an issue, which is downstream both literally and metaphorically of rainfall and its interaction with climate.

[ghastmaster]

I find it hard to reconcile that the entire world is going to be going through cycles of drought and flooding over and over due to a moderate increase in temperature and co2. Where in earth's history is the basis for this? We have had far higher temperature and co2 levels during periods of great animal and plant growth.

[polotics]

Well with more CO2 you have more convection, the higher atmosphere is actually cooling because of the nice CO2 blanket that keeps heat trapped lower. (Which by the way prooves that it's not the sun's natural variability that's the cause, otherwise the higher atmosphere would also get warmer) This temperature differential between low and high atmosphere then means more convection, more evaporation, more movement of air and water. Look just read up on this ok, it's not that hard.

[namaria]

Previous temperature changes occurred over millennia, not a century and a half.

Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.

[ghastmaster]

So the levels aren't the problem, it's the rapidity?

> Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.

I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...

[XorNot]

...that is not how any of that works, to the point that it's literally a coal-mining company talking point I remember from like, the 2000s (from a video made in the 90s).

Which should be trivially resolved by examining whether a temperate region undergoing a drought is "benefiting from increased temperatures".

[epolanski]

Don't forget food.

Eating so much meat, especially beef is devastating on the environment.

A single hamburger pollutes like driving an SUV for 50 miles.

For some reason the food industry catches very little attention despite the gigantic impact.