Climate Change is Racist!

[Verbose]

I think that may be the point this picture is trying to make. I'm guessing the assumption being that rich nations will be able to adapt and essentially buy their way out of the crisis, whereas the poor nations will be left to suffer and die.

Which would be an excellent argument for why in particular the rich nations maybe should adress the problem — ideally before it reaches catastrophic levels for the less fortunate.

If the idea is that climate change is some kind of rich-world conspiracy to screw brown people out of affluence like theirs, the onus would be on the rich countries to use that wealth and tech expertise to come up with ways of running and affluent, growing economy without screwing the climate — "green shifting" and all that jazz.

Likely a combination of both would be a good idea.

 

[Domen]

The global warming will make the world more turbulent politically too. I don't think the third world is going to sit still when they become even more poor and miserable.

If the idea is that climate change is some kind of rich-world conspiracy to screw brown people out of affluence like theirs.

Hwhite climatic privilege!

But the truth is - it's not hwhite man's fault that those guys stayed behind during the out-of-Africa migration!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am operating under the impression that Western Europe and the EU are doing quite a bit to try to navigate to renewable sources of energy as opposed to fossil fuels, etc. Aren't they?

Define "quite a bit" so that we're on the same page. I believe that is an over-generalization of western Europe/EU and question the relative extent, but it wouldn't be hard to change my mind on this one.

We really need it from China/India too, along with any other country spiking in consumption.

 

[CavLancer]

Since if we take historical averages the end of the Holocene is past due then with realistic expectations of climate change... The last 90,000 year period of glaciation was rather hard on North America and Europe so those maps make no sense. The best place to be it close to the equator, like where I am.

 

[warpus]

Define "quite a bit" so that we're on the same page. I believe that is an over-generalization of western Europe/EU and question the relative extent, but it wouldn't be hard to change my mind on this one.

We really need it from China/India too, along with any other country spiking in consumption.

The initial comment was about developed countries, so India and China are left out of the discussion.

By "quite a bit" I mean .. well, wikipedia claims this:

The countries of the European Union are the number two global leaders in the development and application of renewable energy.

Most west European countries also seem to have very lofty goals for renewable energy use.. and as things stand now, 15% of all energy used in the E.U. is renewable (if wikipedia is to be trusted)

North America is lagging quite a bit behind this (I believe)

 

[BenitoChavez]

The northern hemisphere also happens to be more temperate, generally speaking. I think that means that when things get warmer, it won't hit those parts of the globe as much. Together with the fact that rich countries will be better equipped to handle changes to the climate.. is why the map is the way it is. I think?

I'm pretty certain the southern hemisphere is more temperate. It has to do in part with there being more ocean in the southern hemisphere than in the north and since water heats up (and cools down) slower than land it helps regulate temperatures. That's at least my reasoning for it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The initial comment was about developed countries, so India and China are left out of the discussion.

By "quite a bit" I mean .. well, wikipedia claims this:



Most west European countries also seem to have very lofty goals for renewable energy use.. and as things stand now, 15% of all energy used in the E.U. is renewable (if wikipedia is to be trusted)

North America is lagging quite a bit behind this (I believe)

If we're using wiki as a source, then "quite a bit" is ~4%, less depending on your distinction between electricity and energy and how it's being used in each case on the wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

Comparing the percentages against each other makes it seem like the EU is far ahead, but in both cases we're talking a relatively small fraction of total power.

I'm pretty certain the southern hemisphere is more temperate. It has to do in part with there being more ocean in the southern hemisphere than in the north and since water heats up (and cools down) slower than land it helps regulate temperatures. That's at least my reasoning for it.

The most likely explanation for why the southern hemisphere is "more temperate" is that the land it has is closer to the equator. Look at a world map, and compare relative positions. Only the southern tip of South America and a small piece of NZ are as far South as Canada is North. There is no equivalent territory to Russia, Scandinavia, or Canada, and the bulk of it isn't even as far south as the northern parts of midwestern or NE USA.

 

[warpus]

I'm pretty certain the southern hemisphere is more temperate. It has to do in part with there being more ocean in the southern hemisphere than in the north and since water heats up (and cools down) slower than land it helps regulate temperatures. That's at least my reasoning for it.

Not according to random sources I've been googling

Spoiler :

Comparing the percentages against each other makes it seem like the EU is far ahead, but in both cases we're talking a relatively small fraction of total power.

Yes, but I'm also keeping in mind goals for the future. The EU's goals in this space seem incredibly ambitious.

 

[BenitoChavez]

Not according to random sources I've been googling

Spoiler :

I'll see your map and raise you a graph

Spoiler :

While the northern hemisphere might currently have the most area that can currently be labeled as temperate, the southern hemisphere is less affected by the warming in the past couple of decades.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, but my initial point was just that temperate parts of the world will be less affected (on average) than say.. the tropics. And when I say "less affected" I don't just mean temperature, but rather all the effects of climate change.. the impact of the temperature going up, etc. It's just a guess, but I think it's a good one.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, but my initial point was just that temperate parts of the world will be less affected (on average) than say.. the tropics. And when I say "less affected" I don't just mean temperature, but rather all the effects of climate change.. the impact of the temperature going up, etc. It's just a guess, but I think it's a good one.

How much do we know about that stuff? For example how much do rainfall + wind patterns change if you change global temperatures by a given amount? If we're talking slightly altered sea level, shift in global temperature then maybe you get different patterns entirely and places that are "arid" or "not arid" change.

Also, he's correct to point out that *technically*, the southern hemisphere as a whole will have less temperature variance because it has proportionally more water, but what we're interested in is the actual living surface .

Yes, but I'm also keeping in mind goals for the future. The EU's goals in this space seem incredibly ambitious.

I cite the typical outcomes of large project management attempts as a caution against concluding that ambitious goals will lead to markedly superior results.

All it would take is one major technological breakthrough driving a renewable cost below present usage or a major pricing increase of non-renewable and you'd see an overwhelming percentage shift, though in that kind of scenario even "developing" countries would hard shift to renewable.

 

[classical_hero]

But the Sahel region is much greener than past history. Which is the apparently the region that is going to hit the hardest. Considering how many false prediction and projections have been made, I'll put it in the false region, since there is no evidence to back up this project, just conjecture.

 

[warpus]

How much do we know about that stuff? For example how much do rainfall + wind patterns change if you change global temperatures by a given amount? If we're talking slightly altered sea level, shift in global temperature then maybe you get different patterns entirely and places that are "arid" or "not arid" change.

No, that's not what I meant. A temperate climate zone is one that lies in between two extremes - not to hot - and not too cold.

My hypothesis is that a temperate climate zone will allow for more variance in climate change, since it is "in the middle".

Also, he's correct to point out that *technically*, the southern hemisphere as a whole will have less temperature variance because it has proportionally more water, but what we're interested in is the actual living surface .

Sure, but my initial point had nothing to do with this - I just said that the northern hemisphere has more temperate climate zones.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sure, but my initial point had nothing to do with this - I just said that the northern hemisphere has more temperate climate zones.

The northern hemisphere has more *everything*, with regards to land anyway ^_^.

What is "temperate" versus "arid" or "Mediterranean" or even to a degree "tropical" depends on multiple factors. Shift rainfall be enough and suddenly the Sahara and Middle East are "temperate". Do I believe that will happen? I have no idea if it's even possible. I suspect both of our internalized models for predicting what would happen given x amount of global temperature change is sufficiently lacking that any estimate should carry minimal confidence.

 

[warpus]

Meh, I live in a temperate climate zone, I see a lot of variance here. From my understanding, such variance should have larger effects on more extreme climate zones, such as a polar or tropical one - they don't see as much variance generally speaking, so when it happens, there should be more of a fallout.

 

[Bootstoots]

The Southern Hemisphere doesn't have any significant areas with a temperate continental climate, with large temperature differences between winter and summer. The NH has southern Canada, the US Midwest and Northeast, eastern Europe, Central Asia, northern China, etc. All SH land that is far enough south (in the range 38-52 degrees S or so) is too close to the ocean to avoid a significant moderating influence. I think central Patagonia east of the Andes comes closest to a continental climate, but even it is moderated somewhat by the ocean.

 

[BenitoChavez]

My hypothesis is that a temperate climate zone will allow for more variance in climate change, since it is "in the middle".

Ah I see your point. I'm not sure if temperate areas would be more able to adapt to changes in climate but it seems like a reasonable guess.

Also, he's correct to point out that *technically*, the southern hemisphere as a whole will have less temperature variance because it has proportionally more water, but what we're interested in is the actual living surface .

The oceans have a fairly large impact on life on land. The food we eat, the air we breath, and the weather we experience all are affected in some way by the oceans. It would be foolhardy to ignore them.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Meh, I live in a temperate climate zone, I see a lot of variance here. From my understanding, such variance should have larger effects on more extreme climate zones, such as a polar or tropical one - they don't see as much variance generally speaking, so when it happens, there should be more of a fallout.

Before we continue, we should agree on a definition of "variance". What pops in my mind when you say that is "how cold it gets on average in winter versus how hot it gets on average in summer". But that isn't consistent with how you're using it. I live in Florida, and our average temperature variance is basically the same as south-central Alaska, though obviously warmer at both ends.

Antarctica can get as warm as 60F on the coast in summer, though is usually cooler. It can get below 0F easily in winter obviously.

Greenland is more on the order 30F variance, Kamchatka is around 40F. Tropical climates are of course a lot more consistent.

But variance isn't going to change much absent other conditions. If it gets hotter, then the tropical regions will just sit hotter. Unless it hits a break point, I don't see why this is a materially more damaging effect than on temperate regions. Polar regions might see more of an upshift especially if they're not currently warmed by ocean currents.

The oceans have a fairly large impact on life on land. The food we eat, the air we breath, and the weather we experience all are affected in some way by the oceans. It would be foolhardy to ignore them.

It would also be foolhardy to conclude anything by noting higher temperature changes in areas with less water. That unto itself has minimal predictive value...IE what do you expect to see as a result of it? Nothing, just an acknowledgement of the fact that water has a larger specific heat than most things on land.

 

[onejayhawk]

The OP makes more sense than 90% of the racist accusations in this forum.

J

 

[Domen]

Climate has always been racist. After all, climate is what caused humans to diverge into what we call races...

Climate, and geography (which is apparently also racist - especially mountains, deserts, oceans and seas).