Your Warming World: Climate change where you live 1894 – 2013

Yes, the climate has fluctuated over geological time. Scientists know this.

The difference is a) the rate at which it is warming and b) the fact that all living things have adapted to a completely different climate.

Climate change means mass famines and suffering, mass disruptions in commerce as whole industries implode, increased conflicts over dwindling resources, and mass extinction. It's a big deal.

As far as agriculture, crops have evolved to certain soil types and climactic conditions. For examples, yield rates are going down for grains like wheat due to warmer nights, and the soil in Iowa in 2012 was too hot for seeding corn! It won't be a simple as moving the crops northward as the world gets hotter: soil types and ecological conditions are important for crops too.

As far as mass famine and suffering: whole countries will be wiped off the map. That means refugees. It means fewer resources for more people.

As far as more more violence associated with climate change: see dwindling resources and refugees. The US Department of Defense predicts that there will be armed conflicts over desertifying regions, especially Africa, which experience some of the worst climate change [1]. The USDOD is not made up of hippies.

As far as mass extinction: it's already happening. Due to CO2, the ocean is 30% more acidic than it was in the 70s, and the shell fish industry on the wet coast is dying [2]. (Shellfish are particularly sensitive to ocean acidficiation.) This is just the beginning, and the great coral reefs of the world are dying too.[3]

Basically, in my view, climate change is the single most consequential event in human history, and its scope will extend beyond humans too. The aggregate pain and suffering and the unimaginable loss will have a profound effect on the human psyche.

If anyone reading this is concerned, I urge them to join 350.org [4], which is a climate change activist organization. 350 is named after NASA scientist James Hansen's estimate for the upper bound of acceptable CO2 PPM for humanity to thrive in. We passed 400PPM in 2012; humanity evolved in the upper 200's. James Hansen was head of NASA's Goddard Institute before he retired to organize against climate change full time [5].

350.org's main initiative at the moment is divestment: getting major educational institutions to divest from fossil fuels as a social statement. To sign the petition for your school, go to http://gofossilfree.org/ [6] .

The climate change movement desperately needs conscientious, scientifically aware individuals to stand up!

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.ht...

[2] http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/...

[3] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-acidificatio...

[4] http://350.org

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Research_and_publi...

[6] http://gofossilfree.org/

I agree - climate change is a big deal. In fact, it doesn't even matter what our CO2 output is with respect to this problem -- even if we cut it off completely we still have to brace for the threats of climate change. Coming Ice Ages and warm periods could have potentially devastating effects, and we need to be ready. That said, I don't think the temperature will change significantly overnight so we have some time to prepare.

I frigging hate this "nuclear power is the answer to everything" meme that gets repeated on HN.

Nuclear power requires a huge amount of fossil fuels in its life cycle. From building the plant to mining the uranium then decommissioning it. All energy extensive.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/nuclear-is-not-a-low-...

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2013/11/07/myths-and...

Right now nuclear compares to other renewables

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_of_life-cycle_green...

however it is though if it is widely adopted, uranium will become more energy intensive to mine uranium and convert it to fuel.

What you are saying is that the observed climate sensitivity to co2 has been much lower than the modeled climate sensitivity to co2. And that the earlier, alarming models showing large temperature rises are most likely to be incorrect for a variety of reasons.

And on that basis the case for punitive taxation no longer makes sense, and attention should be focused on the development of alternative, efficient and productive energy sources. This should be regarded as a technology challenge, rather than a public policy crisis whereby the blunt instruments of taxation and regulation should force the use of inefficient and costly energy sources.

And you'd be correct. You shouldn't be so shy about stating your position. I understand that stating a realist position has become unfashionable, but in the spirit of the PG essay 'What you can't say' [1] - I always make a point of saying the unfashionable thing. And that is that early models or climate sensitivity were wrong, and the public policy positions generated from those are counter-productive and ineffective.

[1] http://paulgraham.com/say.html

I appreciate that you're clearly a passionate activist, but your statements are alarmist and counterproductive.

'Whole countries wiped off the map'..'mass famine and suffering'...'yield rates going down'...

These are unsupported by real world observations. I understand you wish to alarm people into joining your activist groups, and the more dramatic language, the better (I assume this has been A/B tested). But I think the dramatic language undermines your cause.

The last report I saw was that grains harvest have recently broken records, despite a smaller overall percentage of land devoted to crops. This is mostly due to technology improvements in farming and grain types.

Climate change is an ongoing process which humans have had to, and will have to, deal with. They will use ingenuity, technology and skill to deal with whatever arises.

So you're free to say and believe whatever you want, but I don't think this was really the place for a long recruiting ad.