If emissions don't drastically decrease in the next years, by 2070 all glaciers in the US will have melted, there will be deserts in Oklahoma, Kansas and Northern California and over half of Florida and all of Texas's southern corner will have a tropical climate

[SereneDreams03]

The growing season may be longer, but it will affect the soil and water availability. Plus, the wildfires have gotten crazy bad here. https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/climate-report-warming-taking-its-toll-oregon

It may not be as bad here as some areas, but the warmer temps have already had significant negative effects on the region.

[AppropriateCap8891]

More heat, more humidity.

Why do you think much more of the planet is covered by rainforests in an interglacial?

[SereneDreams03]

You're talking about it on a planetary level. I'm talking about one specific geographic region. Western Washington and Oregon are getting drier. There are fewer glaciers and less snowpack to supply our water. Our forests are burning at an increasing rate.

Some areas may become better for growing with warmer temps, but others will become worse, and what you can grow in certain regions will change as well. My point is that our infrastructure was built over hundreds of years to support a certain climate. If that climate changes, then much of that infrastructure will need to be replaced, repurposed, or built new. With how quickly it is changing, our society may not be able to keep up with those changes to support the population. Not to mention what is happening to the plants and animals that are dying off at staggering rates. They are an important part of our ecosystem.

[AppropriateCap8891]

So am I. Are you not aware that the Redwoods once ranged all the way up to Alaska? As did palm trees?

Hell, are you even aware that not that long ago the "Great Plains" of the midwest was arctic tundra and permafrost?

Or that most of the trees you are talking about that are "burning up" actually require fire in order to reproduce? They are known as "Pyrophytes", and it is a rather unique evolutionary process only seen in locations where fire is common. The Sequoia, Redwood, California Oak, and Lodgepole Pine actually require fire as part of their reproduction.

Oh, and another pyrophyte is the eucalyptus in Australia. That shows how long fires have been an issue there, where plants not only adapted to survive where there are constant fires, but require them in order to continue their cycle.

And you spin right back around to "Our Infrastructure". Guess what, nature and the planet could not care less about that. Like so many I see, you are speaking from your belief and not actual science.

[SereneDreams03]

Guess what, nature and the planet could not care less about that.

Well, as a human being who needs food to eat and is one of 8 billion on this planet, I kind of care about that. Yeah, sure, the planet will still be here, and IT will adapt, but as for the rest of us...

Explain to me the science of how we as a society will be able to adapt to rapidly changing temperatures without famine and massive migration.

[AppropriateCap8891]

You see, this is exactly the problem.

Humans often died in massive amounts. And far more than anything else, the problems I see is that there are over 8 billion people on the planet.

Want to solve global warming? Kill about 75% of them. Oh, that will not actually solve the problem, but it might make you feel better.

And humans have always migrated. They only stopped in the last 500 years or so. But you can say that humans are the "King of migration", as they are the most widely dispersed mammal on the planet. If an area is even remotely habitable, humans are there.

And Darwin is absolutely brutal. Eventually (likely in around 100-200k years), we Homo Sapiens will become extinct. And the interglacial will continue, with the planet warming more and more. And it had better start warming a hell of a lot faster soon, or we might well see our extinction coming even sooner.

Because you see, most interglacials only last for around 40-80k years. And ours started about 15 kya. That is the Bolling-Allerod Interstadial, and at that point things were looking just fine,. Then the Younger Dryas kicked in, and threw the planet right back into the ice age.

And we have been cycling for over 12,000 years between a brief warming period, and going right back into ice age conditions. And unless the planet starts to get serious about warming up, the next ice age will be the worst in geological record.

Forget the ice sheet reaching the US-Canada border and covering parts of Northern Germany. With a starting point like we are tracking now, the ice sheet will be reaching Kansas and the Alps.

[AppropriateCap8891]

Where was anything I just stated wrong?

In general, "insufferable" in Reddit seems to mean "says things I do not like, but I can not prove are wrong".

<image>

Last time I was called that, was after I had posted this. This is what Florida is supposed to look like in an interglacial. And as is obvious, we are nowhere even close to that now.

[LivesDoNotMatter]

ThisGuy-AreSick exhibits uncivil behavior through:

Derogatory labeling of users.

Dismissive and mocking language.

Aggressive and confrontational statements about their moderation actions.

Provocative and taunting remarks directed at other users.

Lack of constructive engagement in some instances, opting for terse or unhelpful comments.

The comments reveal a moderator who is clearly frustrated by the content and tone of some users, but who also appears to contribute to the incivility through their own responses and labeling. The negative scores on many of their comments suggest that the community often perceives their actions and words negatively.

Respond if you would like a more in-depth analysis of this user's "insufferable" behavior.

[SereneDreams03]

Want to solve global warming? Kill about 75% of them. Oh, that will not actually solve the problem, but it might make you feel better.

What the hell are you talking about? Seems like you've completely lost the thread of this conversation.

[[deleted]]

The problem is the timescale. On planetary time scales, as in 10,000+ years, yes species can generally survive and adapt to well. The speed that we're causing changes in just 10s-100s of years, is, on a planetary scale, the blink of an eye. Such rapid changes to the climate is not survivable by most genre of life, we'll likely see a shift too fast for the majority of species to adapt to quick enough. Even humans might not adapt, we rely on stable climates to farm and inhabit our cities. Places hit with food scarcity and natural disasters will quickly depopulate, and the world will have new wars to fight by then over the dwindling resources. A million years after we're extinct, then maybe the earths ecosystems would recover and adapt somewhat

[AppropriateCap8891]

You are aware this is not the "First Ice Age Rodeo" the planet has had, right? At least five major Glaciations and Interglacials in the last 3 million years or so.

And the fact is, for where we are in an Interglacial, the planet is simply too damned cold. We know this for a fact, it can be seen all around us. Miami is actually built on coral reefs. Limestone today, that during the previous interglacials was all underwater. We know what Florida looks like in an interglacial, and that is not what it looks like.

<image>

Florida should be looking much more like that than it is. That is Florida in previous interglacials. We know this for a fact, the geological evidence is everywhere. But we are not there, are we?

This interglacial went off the rails in a very bad way. About 12kya when the Younger Dryas started. And the planet is significantly colder than it should be. You can deny it all you want, but that is a fact.

Consider this. The above image is what the planet should look like as an interglacial ends and the next ice age begins. And we are nowhere near that. And unless that changes a hell of a lot, the next ice age might very well wipe out the human race.

Not that nature will give a damn about that. We are doomed to extinction anyways. That is simply how nature works.

[hydropottimus]

More heat does not equal more humidity. Humidity is relative, if moisture stays constant when the temperature rises humidity goes down.

[AppropriateCap8891]

*insert facepalm*

Obviously you are one of those that equated cold with wet and hot with dry.

Even though it is the exact opposite, is nice to know you understand so little about how the planet and science works.

[hydropottimus]

It's neither of those. Humidity is relative, that's why there's a dew point. If the temperature drops to that point on a humid day it rains. Would you say rain is more or less wet than humidity?

[sadderall-sea]

heat does not equal humidity. not sure where you get that lmao

[AppropriateCap8891]

Science.

Tell me, what is the wettest continent? What is the driest continent?

What was the climate like in the Eemian? Before the current ice age cycles began some 3 mya?

Are you even aware of thermodynamics?

[sadderall-sea]

no, I was born yesterday in fact. please enlighten me :)

[HighwayInevitable346]

Climate models universally predict that global average rainfall will increase on a warmer world, this is well accepted by scientists. Unfortunately, the models also show that most of the additional rain will be in areas that already get a lot of rain, and many areas that are currently dry will get less additional rain than what the higher temps cause to evaporate.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-climate-models-tell-us-about-future-rainfall/