OT (?): Climate change

[pmulcahy11b]

http://www.inquisitr.com/2499265/met...rce-the-ocean/

I say OT(?) because I think that global climate change could easily lead to a T2K scenario.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Absolutely! And if you take the premise for Armor 21, GDW's planned follow on game to T2k, it's not much of a stretch to change the declining petroleum & mineral resources to declining water & food sources.
While we've all been subjected to the hyperbole surrounding the idea of "peak oil", the lack of clean water in the near future is much more significant not just for Third World nations but for the rest of us too as it could lead to increased immigration from Third World nations thereby increasing the pressure on whatever resources we have.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

http://www.inquisitr.com/2499265/met...rce-the-ocean/

I say OT(?) because I think that global climate change could easily lead to a T2K scenario.

Quite so. Global warming can lead to flooded coastal area, forcing populations to move to higher ground, which may already be inhabited. Areas that are marginal agricultural areas can fail, leading to starvation and further migration. At least some of these population shifts can lead to armed conflicts. You will probably also see a rise in infection diseases due to the population shifts, which will lead to an increasing number of migrants being barred entry to new areas.

Oh yes, you can get an ugly global situation.

[swaghauler]

There is already a shortage of drinking water in many places on the Earth. This will only grow, resulting in ever increasing migrations of people looking for the basics needed for survival. That kind of pressure can start a war.

[swaghauler]

In the Atlantic Ocean is the Island of La Palma (in the Canary Islands). On this island is the volcano known as the Cumbre Vieja. This 1,949m high volcanic ridge runs 25km from East to West along the island of La Palma. There is a "crack" in this ridge that would cause half of the volcano to slide into the sea if a sufficiently large eruption caused this "crack" to let go. It would be the largest landslide in human history...Followed by the largest tsunami ever recorded. Imagine the effects of a one to two kilometer high wall of water propagating all around the Atlantic.

Here's the scenario: Jihadists who want to deal The West a "death blow" have acquired an old Russian tactical nuclear weapon. One weapon won't do much against even one enemy...Unless the jihadists were able to lower it into one of the "cracks" on the slope of the Cumbre Vieja. The detonation would then create a "Mega Tsunami" which would smite all the infidels at once.
At this point, The Law of Unintended Consequences begins to take over. The huge volume of water surging onto the North and South American continents causes the West Coast to suffer "The Big One," and California falls into the Pacific Ocean. This causes a second "Mega Tsunami" to propagate across the Pacific Ocean striking the rest of the world with a 2000 meter wall of water. The jihadists who thought they would be protected from the original mega tsunami by the continent of Africa are now inundated from the East as they celebrate in the streets. It takes less than ONE DAY for the Mega Tsunamis to wipe out 80% of the World's population and completely "recarve" the world's topography. Islands are submerged, peninsulas (like Florida) are made into islands or eradicated entirely. Would North and South America still have a land bridge linking them? How many "lowland areas" (like Death Valley and Belgium) would now be "inland seas?" There are more than 300 nuclear reactors in the "devastation zone," each one a Fukushima Disaster waiting to happen. There would also be other earthquakes and environmental disasters to deal with. How many governments could survive this level of destruction?

The premise of this game would be survival in the aftermath of a near Extinction Level Event. The players are survivalists who "go to ground" in personal survival shelters to avoid the chaos of The Inundation War. Six months or a year after the worst of the events are over, they reenter the world to continue trying to survive.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

In the Atlantic Ocean is the Island of La Palma (in the Canary Islands). On this island is the volcano known as the Cumbre Vieja. This 1,949m high volcanic ridge runs 25km from East to West along the island of La Palma. There is a "crack" in this ridge that would cause half of the volcano to slide into the sea if a sufficiently large eruption caused this "crack" to let go. It would be the largest landslide in human history...Followed by the largest tsunami ever recorded. Imagine the effects of a one to two kilometer high wall of water propagating all around the Atlantic.

Here's the scenario: Jihadists who want to deal The West a "death blow" have acquired an old Russian tactical nuclear weapon. One weapon won't do much against even one enemy...Unless the jihadists were able to lower it into one of the "cracks" on the slope of the Cumbre Vieja. The detonation would then create a "Mega Tsunami" which would smite all the infidels at once.
At this point, The Law of Unintended Consequences begins to take over. The huge volume of water surging onto the North and South American continents causes the West Coast to suffer "The Big One," and California falls into the Pacific Ocean. This causes a second "Mega Tsunami" to propagate across the Pacific Ocean striking the rest of the world with a 2000 meter wall of water. The jihadists who thought they would be protected from the original mega tsunami by the continent of Africa are now inundated from the East as they celebrate in the streets. It takes less than ONE DAY for the Mega Tsunamis to wipe out 80% of the World's population and completely "recarve" the world's topography. Islands are submerged, peninsulas (like Florida) are made into islands or eradicated entirely. Would North and South America still have a land bridge linking them? How many "lowland areas" (like Death Valley and Belgium) would now be "inland seas?" There are more than 300 nuclear reactors in the "devastation zone," each one a Fukushima Disaster waiting to happen. There would also be other earthquakes and environmental disasters to deal with. How many governments could survive this level of destruction?

The premise of this game would be survival in the aftermath of a near Extinction Level Event. The players are survivalists who "go to ground" in personal survival shelters to avoid the chaos of The Inundation War. Six months or a year after the worst of the events are over, they reenter the world to continue trying to survive.

That has to be the nastiest T2K scenario I ever heard!

[Targan]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

At this point, The Law of Unintended Consequences begins to take over. The huge volume of water surging onto the North and South American continents causes the West Coast to suffer "The Big One," and California falls into the Pacific Ocean. This causes a second "Mega Tsunami" to propagate across the Pacific Ocean striking the rest of the world with a 2000 meter wall of water.

I'm no seismologist or geologist but I don't think even the biggest tsunami would set off a major California earthquake. I don't think it works like that.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Targan

I'm no seismologist or geologist but I don't think even the biggest tsunami would set off a major California earthquake. I don't think it works like that.

Oh, I agree, it's impossible, but the scenario is wonderfully is fiendish.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

There is already a shortage of drinking water in many places on the Earth. This will only grow, resulting in ever increasing migrations of people looking for the basics needed for survival. That kind of pressure can start a war.

Yes, but only in places said people can easily get to.

For example, assume the current illegal immigrant/possible refugee crisis in Southern Europe were actually the result of such climate change and, well, Europe didn't have any more 'fat' to share ...

What do you seriously think would happen if the Europeans simply started to machinegun anyone who tried it, by sea or land, or turned them back in their leaky boats to drown?

What could they do?

If they tried to (let's laughingly call it 'organise') and make a military effort, well, at least the survivors would probably have enough food and water to go around amongst their reduced numbers.

Human wave attacks? Against modern european armed forces?

Lots of dead third worlders.

Not that I'm advocating that mind, but if push came to shove and it was 'feed us and our 1.5 child families' or 'starve and fail to feed their umpteen child families' that's what would happen ... most of the starving hordes will be in third world s**tholes who can barely manage to kill each other off ineffectually with imported western (or russian) weapons.

Reality Bites,

Phil

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Targan

I'm no seismologist or geologist but I don't think even the biggest tsunami would set off a major California earthquake. I don't think it works like that.

Actually, it's been proven recently, that large shifts in the tectonic plates cause stress in both seismic fissure/fault lines and may cause the magma chambers of volcanoes to fill at an accelerated rate. In the case of volcanoes, the magma is squeezed up into the chamber from the mantle by the shifting of the plate. In the case of a major fault (like the San Andreas Fault), The energy of the tectonic plate's movement gets "concentrated" at the fault because that is the "seam" between plates where the energy will travel to. Think of the edges of a deck of cards being shuffled, when you bend the cards in either hand together. Where does the energy of those bending cards concentrate? At the ends of both groups of cards being blended together. The insertion of the level of energy a mega tsunami holds onto the North and South American plates would lift them up at that end violently. I doubt the Pacific plate could withstand that much energy being transferred to the western fault systems that quickly without letting go. If California's faults were all simultaneously "super loaded" at once; That would create the possibility of California being cracked apart and tumbling into the Pacific Ocean. A terrifying Extinction Level Event triggered by a lowly Tactical Nuclear Weapon deployed at the right place on Earth. I hope no jihadists are reading this....

[swaghauler]

I should also clarify the 80% casualty rate. 80% of the population of the world lives within 100 Kilometers of a major coastline. Approximately 60% of the world lives within the volcanic region known as the "Ring of Fire." 40% of Western Civilization lives within 100 kilometers of a nuclear power plant. There is no reliable (or unreliable) information about how many people live near hazardous or explosive industrial sites. When you take into account all the "secondary disasters" a mega tsunami would trigger, the death toll would easily become 80% of the population.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

Yes, but only in places said people can easily get to.

For example, assume the current illegal immigrant/possible refugee crisis in Southern Europe were actually the result of such climate change and, well, Europe didn't have any more 'fat' to share ...

What do you seriously think would happen if the Europeans simply started to machinegun anyone who tried it, by sea or land, or turned them back in their leaky boats to drown?

What could they do?

If they tried to (let's laughingly call it 'organise') and make a military effort, well, at least the survivors would probably have enough food and water to go around amongst their reduced numbers.

Human wave attacks? Against modern european armed forces?

Lots of dead third worlders.

Not that I'm advocating that mind, but if push came to shove and it was 'feed us and our 1.5 child families' or 'starve and fail to feed their umpteen child families' that's what would happen ... most of the starving hordes will be in third world s**tholes who can barely manage to kill each other off ineffectually with imported western (or russian) weapons.

Reality Bites,

Phil

And what if it were Russia who suffered a major drought and decided that her neighbors' crops looked pretty good? What if China, or India, decided they needed more resources such as water, or arable land, to sustain their people? To assume The Third World is the only place that could suffer deprivation during climate change is a foolish notion. The US itself has suffered drought and crop failure in recent years.
I even wonder at times if Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico might not go to war over the water in the region?

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

And what if it were Russia who suffered a major drought and decided that her neighbors' crops looked pretty good? What if China, or India, decided they needed more resources such as water, or arable land, to sustain their people? To assume The Third World is the only place that could suffer deprivation during climate change is a foolish notion. The US itself has suffered drought and crop failure in recent years.
I even wonder at times if Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico might not go to war over the water in the region?

Have you ever heard (capitalisation is deliberate) of The Great Famine? No, NOT the well known Irish (Potato) Famine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315–17

It hit all of Western Europe including Russia and was a result of Climate Change (the end of the Medieval Warm period).

So it is extremely unlikely that just Russia would be affected.

There are reports (probably 'exaggeration for effect', but we simply don't know for sure) of widespread enough to be mentioned cannibalism in some areas, which is (scarily, read on) uncommon in reporting of western famines though not of East Asian ones.

That's one thing. But do you know why Famines were such a big deal in pre-modern times?

Think about it for a moment, and reflect on where they still occur ... and you'll get an inkling.

Ethiopia. Darfur. East Bengal (at the end of WW2).

All third World s**tholes ... more importantly, 3rd World s**tholes with rubbish internal and international transport links.

In pre-modern Europe, it was not at all unheard of for there to be a Famine in one region, possibly 'only' on the other side of a major river, and yet there to be plenty on the other … and people still starved. Do you know why?

Simple.

Transport costs.

It was worse by land, of course, as animal drawn transport consumes the amount it can carry in food in 200 klicks … and far less on the rubbish pre-modern 'road' system or in anything but flat and level terrain.

But we know that very little was ever transported by sea … with a few exceptions, which are instructive … Greece (Athens, mainly, from the Euxine – but probably only for 100,000 people or so) in the 5th Century BC and Classical Rome or Constantinople during the height of the Roman Empire (probably for a million people) and, at the end of the period (getting into the 17th Century) when tech starts to take off.

So what can we expect if climate change hits … hard?

Easy Peasy to predict.

If it hits the way we expect, the places and people who will be hit first and hardest will be in the countries with …

* the worst internal and international transport links

* the worst developed economies (so there's no reason for others to use their own transport assets to assist them unless they have an excess … which, if climate change worsens, at some point they won't any more)

* the most backward technology levels (so they can't provide solutions or potential solutions for themselves using technology)

* the most corrupt, inefficient and ineffective institutions of government and civil society (do I need to explain why?)

* a demonstrated inability to manage out of control population growth (again, do I need to explain why?)

Russia doesn't fall into any of these categories … not even the government ones (though I get the impression that Putin and his cronies are working hard on that one).

The countries with the highest tech, best transport links and best developed governmental and civil society structures will be able to shift existing food around, rationing, one supposes, if needed, while the third worlders starve … simply because, when push comes to shove, and it means shorting ourselves and our children to assuage our consciences, they'll be at the end of the queue, playing 'left right out' as we say in Cricket.

Then, of course, there's the economic case facing Russia – even if Putin/Putin's successors manage to mismanage things so badly that they can't feed their own people from their own resources, which would be the easiest solution?

* Invade an armed to the teeth Western Europe where the potential gains, if any, will be more than outweighed by potential losses … and where you really cannot win anyway, since if it is that serious, well, the nukes start flying.

* Invade south into the 'Stans, Iran, Pakistan, India … hell, even invade overseas in those self-same 3rd world s**tholes that can probably be turned into breadbaskets with even Russian tech and, really, let's face it, the actual Russian attitude to such people is as racist as it comes ('blackarses' is what I believe the common Russian slang translates as), so taking their food and letting them starve, especially when they don't have nukes, or not enough, is, relatively to invading Western Europe, a much more palatable idea.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

What if China, or India, decided they needed more resources such as water, or arable land, to sustain their people?

Neither have amphibious capacity worth spit, so, realistically, they're limited to what they can get to by land.

China could take Vietnam and Burma, with difficulty because of the bad transport, probably buts of Afghanistan. Thailand might offend the west, but would the US (the one with most of the nukes) care, if push came to shove?

In any case, the Chinese have been buying up agricultural land, often in 3rd world s**tholes (ISTR that they bought up all of the surplus production of Madagascar recently, for example) where they could probably move in enough 'peacekeepers' to 'assist the [Chinese Puppet] Government to maintain order' ... feeding them and their cronies and letting the rest starve while shipping food back home.

India has similar problems. They could take Burma, again with difficulty mainly because of the transport links (lack of) and, possibly, bits of Afghanistan. They didn't do well against the Chinese the last time they tried them on (1960s) and the Chinese have more nukes.

Against Pakistan? Well, the Indians probably have more nukes and probably have more delivery systems and those systems are probably more reliable ... but it would be a pyrrhic victory.

They certainly don't have any capacity to try for much more and, really, are only a 3rd world s**thole with a thin veneer of 2nd worldness.

Phil

[TrailerParkJawa]

The fault system in California won't cause the State to tumble into the ocean. One part of CA is moving south; the other part north.

Otherwise climate change added in with the end of the oil age could most certainly create a T2K scenario.

Social complexity requires excess calories. Excess calories are provided by oil. But imagine if we had another Little Ice Age and there was widespread crop failures. Lots of hungry people start moving!

[Targan]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

In any case, the Chinese have been buying up agricultural land, often in 3rd world s**tholes (ISTR that they bought up all of the surplus production of Madagascar recently, for example) where they could probably move in enough 'peacekeepers' to 'assist the [Chinese Puppet] Government to maintain order' ... feeding them and their cronies and letting the rest starve while shipping food back home.

China has been buying a LOT of land in Australia. Not quite a third world s**thole LOL! Personally I'm a bit uncomfortable with it, but hey, the government here hasn't quite got to the point where they consider pastoral/agricultural land to be a strategic asset worth holding onto.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by TrailerParkJawa

The fault system in California won't cause the State to tumble into the ocean. One part of CA is moving south; the other part north.

Otherwise climate change added in with the end of the oil age could most certainly create a T2K scenario.

Social complexity requires excess calories. Excess calories are provided by oil. But imagine if we had another Little Ice Age and there was widespread crop failures. Lots of hungry people start moving!

As I noted, the Little Ice age didn't cause worldwide famines, it caused (possibly increased, possibly not) localised famines, And they were only famines because the transport technology of the period wasn't able to move actual surpluses from areas that had actual surpluses to the areas with the deficits.

As for the end of the oil age, doom and gloom by the same people that brought you the ridiculous 'The Limits of Growth' (Club of Rome, IIRC) which could only come to pass if they assumed that there would be absolutely no advances in technology of any sort. Which, even in the 60's, was ludicrous.

There are technological alternatives to oil, even now. Sure, they currently cost more, but, historically speaking, even looking at just the period since WW2, food prices as a percentage of average income has come down dramatically.

So, what will happen is that the price of food will go up, and the percentage of income spent on food will, too ... which we managed to cope with prior to the last 60 years or so without it causing world wars (no, food shortages did not cause WW2).

And, of course, it is not possible to even state definitively that food costs will go up due to rising transport costs - because it is always possible that alternative technologies (electric, hydrogen cycle ... ghu knows what) will actually minimise the actual increase in transport costs.

Again, the areas that have corrupt, inefficient governments which largely perpetuate their inadequate and low tech transport infrastructure are the areas that are going to be hit by medieval famines, and for the same reasons.

Phil

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Targan

China has been buying a LOT of land in Australia. Not quite a third world s**thole LOL! Personally I'm a bit uncomfortable with it, but hey, the government here hasn't quite got to the point where they consider pastoral/agricultural land to be a strategic asset worth holding onto.

Indeed. And even with increased droughts we will probably be fine - and able to support our own population, and the farmland that the Chinese are buying (or the bits I've seen reported) are in areas that are likely to be worst hit by climate change ... I really cannot see why they are doing it if they are making long range plans.

AIUI Australia is 4th top (discounting 'EU' as a 'country') major exporters of cereal grains in the entire world, and guess who gets shorted if there are shortages here ... the places we export to (sans China, perhaps) ... and there are lots of them that are, yes, third world s**tholes that will probably starve if we do, but who will be able to do damn all about it.

In fact, look at the top 5 real countries - US, Canada, Russian Federation, Australia, Ukraine ... and of 128 countries listed by the USDA only 60 export any quantity of cereal grain, and of those the top 15 export more than 95%.

If climate change hits, it won't cause famines in the top 5, and probably not in the top 8-10 ... the further down the list you go the more they are going to suffer and the less we will be able (or wish) to do anything about it.

Phil