zlacker

This is naive. It's not the absolute temperature that's the problem, it's the rate of change. Temperature is going to change faster than most species can adapt, and that's why the food chain could collapse in the worst case.

>>naaski+(OP)
That's true, but I think it's quite debatable what would actually happen. Most species wouldn't need to adapt, but just migrate. There are a lot of species which already thrive in warm / tropical climates, and those species would increase in numbers.

>>Geee+t4
And what about the species that do not warm nor thrive in tropical climates? Or those that cannot migrate? Even if some species increase in numbers, it still means that all other species would get lost, reducing biodiversity and effectively meaning an extinction-level event.

>>petemi+68
> ...all other species would get lost, reducing biodiversity and effectively meaning an extinction-level event.

Reducing biodiversity doesn't equate to an extension-level event though. It also doesn't mean all species who didn't thrive would be lost - many would be affected but not existentially so.

I'm reminded of George Carlin's joke about the planet being fine long-term, we're the ones who will be screwed.

>>Geee+t4
This all will absolutely disrupt agriculture and food chains. Also humans are political creatures which cannot easily migrate. These migrations usually end up with things, called wars.

>>bavell+Cc
> Reducing biodiversity doesn't equate to an extension-level event though

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica [0]: __These conspicuous declines in diversity are referred to as mass extinctions__

> It also doesn't mean all species who didn't thrive would be lost - many would be affected but not existentially so.

But this is not a fact, it is a conjecture. On the other hand, we do have declining numbers of a big number of species. Unless the tendency reverts, constant long-term declining numbers will be an existential threat.

> I'm reminded of George Carlin's joke about the planet being fine long-term, we're the ones who will be screwed.

That's true, for sure. But asides from "the planet" and "we", there are also all the others.

>>naaski+(OP)
What "the food chain"? IMHO there are many relatively disconnected food chains.

There are many natural ecosystems which could and would be severely disrupted as the food chains there break up.

However, the food chain for homo sapiens largely relies on artificial monocultures that can be moved around and replaced on a large scale if the local conditions change. Natural environment can't switch to a "warmer climate biome" overnight, but a farmer can and will plant an entirely different crop in the next season if that suits the place better now, with only some expenses in retooling tractor attachments. And while there are many food industries which are relatively brittle, these are relatively niche 'luxury' foods which often are economically very valuable, but not the staple foods which actually feed the population. Like, if California had to abandon growing almonds due to water issues and instead grow something less demanding (and less profitable), that would destroy a huge industry but wouldn't cause food insecurity.

>>Peteri+bF
> However, the food chain for homo sapiens largely relies on artificial monocultures that can be moved around and replaced

As just one example, ocean acidification could kill a lot of the algae. Pretty much everything is upstream of algae. It would be catastrophic, even for us.

>>naaski+Mp1
Are cereals, tubers and legumes upstream of algae? They are "pretty much everything* as far as food security is concerned, they constitute 90% of calories consumed by humanity; the three main species - rice, maize, and wheat - currently form 2/3 and in case of a catastrophe probably could cover nearly 100%.