World, Writing, Wealth discussion

We Asked Sci-Fi Writers About The Future Of Climate Change
(Published 6 Feb 2017)

"Fiction, on the other hand, can entertain, inform, and speculate. In the case of science fiction, it can provide human context for facts and data, supporting it rather than refuting it. Possible solutions to urgent issues such as climate change can be explored."
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/s...)

Why don't I see sci-fi books that refute anthropogenic global warming? Perhaps, I'm not looking for them, but maybe some of these books don't point to human activity as a cause of global warming?

Fallen Angels by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, & Michael Flynn.

Would pretty much fall within your category. However, it's not a strict refutation (more of an endorsement), as it assumes that de-industrialisation allows "nature to take it's course" which is straight into the next glaciation.

Basically, it would be quite easy to posit a future where Humanity is surprised by the onset of the next glacial period, rather than warming.

A glacial onset would be a catastrophe as the northern countries (the ones that also happen to have the advanced militaries) would need to aggressively migrate south in search of territory on which to live.

Australia would actually become quite the prize in such a scenario as we are much wetter in a glacial period and can support a much larger population than we do now.

There has been some speculation over the years that global warming could end up triggering an ice age. One possibility is that all the fresh water moving into the oceans from the melting ice caps could disrupt ocean currents and bring them to a near halt. The ocean currents are important to regulating planetary temperature by drawing warmer water from the equatorial regions toward the north and south. If that were to stop the higher latitudes would lose the warming effect and could potentially swing towards a new cool phase.

Hi J.J.

As per IMDB: Movie: The Day After Tomorrow

While narratively useful for a movie, glacials do not occur in 3 days. :-).

I would say for the same reason you don't see reputable scientific studies refuting it.

And J.J. is partly correct in that assertion there Graeme (though not in the way that ridiculous movie suggests!). If the ice sheets of Greenland and the Arctic melt rapidly, they will disrupt the Gulf Stream, thus affecting Europe's weather by making them experience some seriously colder winters.

However, it won't trigger a new ice age or prolonged cooling, in all likelihood. More likely, it will simply create more extreme weather patterns. For instance, the superstorm surges we've seen on the eastern seaboard and in western Europe of late have been linked in part to disruption in the Gulf Stream.

Superstorm as in thunderstorm or winter storm?

Matthew wrote: "I would say for the same reason you don't see reputable scientific studies refuting it.

And J.J. is partly correct in that assertion there Graeme (though not in the way that ridiculous movie sugg..."

I didn't say it would. The whole point is that at this point we really don't know what could happen because our planet's systems are so complex. As an example, it was last winter we had a powerful typhoon in the Pacific. The storm headed north and it was so powerful, it drove the Jet Stream northward with it. As a consequence, it forced the Jet Stream southward where it crosses North America and we got one of the "Polar Vortexes" the media hyped up. Could we have seen ten to fifteen years ago that climate change would create storms so powerful they would alter the course of the weather all over the world? We're not really talking about it now.

On a lighter note, Futurama did a gag where Fry, the character from the 20th century, comments "It's a good thing global warming never happened." And one of the characters from the 31st century replies, "It did, but then nuclear winter cancelled it out."

-:)

J.J. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "I would say for the same reason you don't see reputable scientific studies refuting it.

And J.J. is partly correct in that assertion there Graeme (though not in the way that ridic..."

Actually, we know with a fair degree of certainty what would happen because this things have happened before. We know that CO2 levels have been as high as they are now in the Pliocene Era, when sea levels were significantly higher. We know how melting ice from Greenland and the Arctic would disrupt the Gulfstream because this is what happened during the Little Ice Age of the 17th century.

And climate scientists have been saying for decades that more extreme weather and coastal storms are a consequence. "We're not really talking about it now"? I don't know where you're getting your information from. But the role played by climate change is brought up every time a major coastal storm has struck. Much the same is true in response to the increase in forest fires and the prolonged drought in California.

Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "I would say for the same reason you don't see reputable scientific studies refuting it.

And J.J. is partly correct in that assertion there Graeme (though not in the w..."
Had to do a quick search on the ear you mention because throughout Earth's history the continents have changed positions, altering ocean currents to create climates in ways different from today.

This is from Wikipedia, so you can take is as a source any way you want... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene

It was during this time that the Isthmus of Panama closed, cutting off a major ocean current between the two continents. "The formation of the Isthmus had major consequences on global temperatures, since warm equatorial ocean currents were cut off and an Atlantic cooling cycle began, with cold Arctic and Antarctic waters dropping temperatures in the now-isolated Atlantic Ocean."

Now the article does discuss the CO2 levels and temperatures: "The global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3–3 mya) was 2–3 °C higher than today,[9] and carbon dioxide levels were the same as today,[10] global sea level 25 m higher[11] and the Northern hemisphere ice sheet was ephemeral before the onset of extensive glaciation over Greenland that occurred in the late Pliocene around 3 Ma."

Yet it was during this time the Earth shifted toward a cold phase: "Oceans continued to be relatively warm during the Pliocene, though they continued cooling. The Arctic ice cap formed, drying the climate and increasing cool shallow currents in the North Atlantic. Deep cold currents flowed from the Antarctic."

Heading to the article on the Miocene, it seems the cooling trend we saw during the Pliocene was already underway. "The earth went from the Oligocene through the Miocene and into the Pliocene, with the climate slowly cooling towards a series of ice ages. " "There is evidence from oxygen isotopes at Deep Sea Drilling Program sites that ice began to build up in Antarctica about 36 Ma during the Eocene. "

If I were to simply look at the cause and effect with nothing but CO2 levels and planetary temperatures as my guide, it would seem my early speculation is correct, that the warming we're seeing to day would lead to an Ice Age. But as I point out, it's not as simple as you want it to be. Conditions on Earth millions of years ago were far different and there were events during the period you reference that don't allow you to draw a fair comparison to today.

The problem is you're looking for a climate change denier argument where there is none. I'm not denying man has a role in what we're seeing. What I'm trying to get across is that our planet is far more complex a system than either side wants to consider - that includes those on the side of man-made climate change. What I'm saying is it is not a simple matter to extrapolate a future under increased CO2 levels and warmer temperatures, because there are a lot of variables we're still trying to understand.

The problem is most people have too much going on in their lives to worry about the minutia, and that detailed analysis doesn't make for a good sound bite, nor do people get fired up if the issue requires a full lecture to explain. The problem is any climate change policy we make as a result of dumbing down the issue just as we do with the rest of our politics could prove worthless at best, disastrous at worst.

As for the comment I made about "we're not really talking about it now," it might have been my fault for not being clear enough, but then again, it was made in context to an entire paragraph and not one, selective line. I did not mean that we were not talking about "superstorms," rather we're not talking about how these storms are impacting the climate all by themselves - a more general statement might be that we're not talking about all the ramifications such storms have. When it comes to the creation of storms under global warming, the discussion focuses on one of two things: 1) that they are a result of global warming; that under global warming we're going to see fewer, but more powerful storms, and 2) the financial costs such storms are going to inflict. Everything else gets drowned out and buried - if it even gets reported mainstream.