- Dec 17, 2010
- 8,360
- 1,754
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi all,
At the moment I'm putting out a call out for any good papers you know of that summarise the "I" for Instability.
INSTABILITY sums up climate impacts on economic prosperity and lifestyles. Some have modelled significant economic cuts to our lifestyles. Other studies confirm increased interpersonal conflicts as temperatures increase. Both of these can exacerbate into increased violent crime, especially as other sources of tension increase from social media echo chambers and the increase in violent political protests etc.
There's also the phrase "Threat Multiplier" that states:-
So I'm interested in domestic politics and economics and lifestyle changes - through to the very worst case scenarios.
THE VERY WORST of the WORST CASE SCENARIOS!
This is crazy stuff.
Scientific - backed by peer-reviewed papers - but still crazy.
It's not the sort of stuff you talk about at polite dinner parties.
The Pentagon calls climate change a "Threat Multiplier". Climate change may just provoke already very stressed nations highly suspicious of each other - like Russia Vs NATO or China vs the USA - into conflict - and that could quickly escalate into full scale nuclear war.
If that happens, the latest science on it is NOT good.
Climate science studying Australia's 2019 mega-fires casts new light on how 'black carbon' in soot behaves up in the stratosphere. The sun's rays keep it floating around like a hot air balloon. This prolongs the nuclear winter - making it so, so much worse.
Here's the crazy bit - the bit you don't talk about at parties.
The northern hemisphere may just starve back to 1% of their original population! (Xia et al, August 2022).
The following short Youtube is based on the latest papers. (Click under the youtube for the papers).
It's truly horrific - the worst thing on my blog.
Over 5 billion may starve.
In the worst case scenario - only 1% of the Northern Hemisphere survives. Think about that! The USA's 330 million down to 3.3 million - if that. They go from being a super-power to half the size of Sydney - Australia! Check the map. Even YELLOW is horrific - meaning your government has had to decide which of your 25% to 50% of your population had to starve and who survives! No country would be the same after something like that - not for generations. Light GREEN is horrific - 1% to 25% - up to a quarter of your population starving.
But orange and brown? Forget it. Gone.
Warmer oceans down south help shield Australia and Argentina somewhat. After reading a few of these papers and thinking it through with my social sciences background - my guess is that after the skies cleared 5 to 10 years later, Australia and Argentina would probably emerge as the new super-powers in a catastrophically reduced world. But that's just an introduction to the very worst case scenario.
Do you have good references for papers like that - or a particular area that you care about?
(This post edited after some negative feedback in the thread below.)
At the moment I'm putting out a call out for any good papers you know of that summarise the "I" for Instability.
INSTABILITY sums up climate impacts on economic prosperity and lifestyles. Some have modelled significant economic cuts to our lifestyles. Other studies confirm increased interpersonal conflicts as temperatures increase. Both of these can exacerbate into increased violent crime, especially as other sources of tension increase from social media echo chambers and the increase in violent political protests etc.
There's also the phrase "Threat Multiplier" that states:-
“Threat multiplier” has become a widely used term by scholars and practitioners to describe climate change implications for security in both the policy realm and climate-security literature. The term was coined in 2007 by the CNA (Center for Naval Analyses) Military Advisory Board under the leadership of Sherri Goodman. It captures how climate change effects interact with and have the potential to exacerbate pre-existing threats and other drivers of instability to contribute to security risks. The concept has been characterized as “definitional” in having “set a baseline for how to talk about the issue” and having shaped “the way in which people studying climate policy think about risks.” Its use has also been described as “one of the most prominent ways in which the security implications of climate change have been understood.”
So I'm interested in domestic politics and economics and lifestyle changes - through to the very worst case scenarios.
THE VERY WORST of the WORST CASE SCENARIOS!
(Though NOT what this whole thread should be about!)
This is crazy stuff. Scientific - backed by peer-reviewed papers - but still crazy.
It's not the sort of stuff you talk about at polite dinner parties.
The Pentagon calls climate change a "Threat Multiplier". Climate change may just provoke already very stressed nations highly suspicious of each other - like Russia Vs NATO or China vs the USA - into conflict - and that could quickly escalate into full scale nuclear war.
If that happens, the latest science on it is NOT good.
Climate science studying Australia's 2019 mega-fires casts new light on how 'black carbon' in soot behaves up in the stratosphere. The sun's rays keep it floating around like a hot air balloon. This prolongs the nuclear winter - making it so, so much worse.
Here's the crazy bit - the bit you don't talk about at parties.
The northern hemisphere may just starve back to 1% of their original population! (Xia et al, August 2022).
The following short Youtube is based on the latest papers. (Click under the youtube for the papers).
It's truly horrific - the worst thing on my blog.
Over 5 billion may starve.
In the worst case scenario - only 1% of the Northern Hemisphere survives. Think about that! The USA's 330 million down to 3.3 million - if that. They go from being a super-power to half the size of Sydney - Australia! Check the map. Even YELLOW is horrific - meaning your government has had to decide which of your 25% to 50% of your population had to starve and who survives! No country would be the same after something like that - not for generations. Light GREEN is horrific - 1% to 25% - up to a quarter of your population starving.
But orange and brown? Forget it. Gone.
Warmer oceans down south help shield Australia and Argentina somewhat. After reading a few of these papers and thinking it through with my social sciences background - my guess is that after the skies cleared 5 to 10 years later, Australia and Argentina would probably emerge as the new super-powers in a catastrophically reduced world. But that's just an introduction to the very worst case scenario.
I is for Instability.
I'm still interested in the smaller stuff - like increased prices, reduced lifestyles, inflamed politics, etc.Do you have good references for papers like that - or a particular area that you care about?
(This post edited after some negative feedback in the thread below.)
Last edited:
