# Recovering from nuclear war vs catastrophic climate change **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 6, 2019, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279 "2019-08-06T23:29:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279/21 "2019-08-08T17:11:31Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > OP mentions the worst reasonably likely climate change. Is there some consensus on what that is? I’ve heard about something like 200 million people suffering significant hardship but out of, let’s say 10 billion people in 2050, 2% of humanity being in the shit is deplorable but pretty good compared to every past era. The OP discusses “Full-on 1980s nuclear exchange”. I think the relevant source for a worst case scenario for the 1980’s view of nuclear winter would be the paper by Carl Sagan and associates and accompanying newsmagazine article. [https://www.cooperative-individualism.org/sagan-carl\_nuclear-winter-1983.htm](https://www.cooperative-individualism.org/sagan-carl_nuclear-winter-1983.htm) (I couldn’t find a free source for the full paper.) The article contains this paragraph: > [@](#): > > Many biologists, considering the nuclear winter that these calculations describe, believe they carry somber implications for life on Earth. Many species of plants and animals would become extinct. Vast numbers of surviving humans would starve to death. The delicate ecological relations that bind together organisms on Earth in a fabric of mutual dependency would be torn, perhaps irreparably. There is little question that our global civilization would be destroyed. The human population would be reduced to prehistoric levels, or less. Life for any survivors would be extremely hard. And there seems to be a real possibility of the extinction of the human species. A recent, relevant worst case scenario for cataclysmic climate change is The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells. > **[When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html)** > > Plague, famine, heat no human can survive. This is not science fiction but what scientists, when they’re not being cautious, fear could be our future. From that article: > [@](#): > > The Earth has experienced five mass extinctions before the one we are living through now, each so complete a slate-wiping of the evolutionary record it functioned as a resetting of the planetary clock, and many climate scientists will tell you they are the best analog for the ecological future we are diving headlong into. \ The most notorious was 252 million years ago; it began when carbon warmed the planet by five degrees, accelerated when that warming triggered the release of methane in the Arctic, and ended with 97 percent of all life on Earth dead. We are currently adding carbon to the atmosphere at a considerably faster rate; by most estimates, at least ten times faster. The rate is accelerating. \ The many sober-minded scientists I interviewed over the past several months — the most credentialed and tenured in the field, few of them inclined to alarmism and many advisers to the IPCC who nevertheless criticize its conservatism — have quietly reached an apocalyptic conclusion, too: No plausible program of emissions reductions alone can prevent climate disaster. The two worst case scenarios are pretty much equally bad for the survival of the human species. The biggest difference between them is the timespan. Nuclear winter would hit humanity in a few weeks. Cataclysmic climate change will be occurring over decades. Humanity can achieve a lot over the course of decades, provided we’re sufficiently motivated. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279/22 "2019-08-08T17:40:02Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > OP mentions the worst reasonably likely climate change. Is there some consensus on what that is? I’ve heard about something like 200 million people suffering significant hardship but out of, let’s say 10 billion people in 2050, 2% of humanity being in the shit is deplorable but pretty good compared to every past era. There isn’t consensus on anything as specific as number of people affected, but I’m not sure where you get the 200 million number. That sounds more like a lowball estimate of people already affected, not anywhere close to the expected impacts. If you want a better idea of what “worst reasonable likely” looks like, I encourage you to read _Uninhabitable Earth_ by David Wallace-Wells. The full-length book expands on [his essay here](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html). Unfortunately, I think the scenario he discusses is most likely, not just worst case. To answer the OP, I agree with **HMS Irruncible**. In the short term, nuclear war will be much more devastating. But humanity and the rest of earth’s biosphere can recover from it, even if means a 90% or even 99% drop in population for the first 20 years. Climate change, on the other hand, could create a situation where humans never recover and eventually dwindle as a species. ETA: heh, on preview, I see **Wrenching Spanners** linked the same article. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279/23 "2019-08-08T18:50:50Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Nuke some place we don’t care about There is no such place. There are obviously lots of places that you, personally, don’t care about. But that’s not the same thing. (Plus, of course, all the other stuff that’s been said already.) ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279/24 "2019-08-08T19:42:06Z")
I don’t think we’re going to “recover” from climate change. I think we will adapt to the new shittier conditions, and that will be the new normal. Yeah, wars will happen, human migration will happen, new massively expensive infrastructure would be required, and, the economy will suffer. A good chunk of people will die, particularly in developing countries. But I don’t think you will see death tolls like a 1980s style nuclear armageddon. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279/25 "2019-08-08T19:56:28Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > I don’t think we’re going to “recover” from climate change. I think we will adapt to the new shittier conditions, and that will be the new normal. Yeah, wars will happen, human migration will happen, new massively expensive infrastructure would be required, and, the economy will suffer. A good chunk of people will die, particularly in developing countries. But I don’t think you will see death tolls like a 1980s style nuclear armageddon. We are talking about worst case scenarios though. I do agree with you…I think we can adapt to climate change, as a species, better than we could to all out nuclear war. To me, it’s not really even a contest, even if we are talking about the absolute worst climate change scenarios I’ve seen…and, frankly, I think we will not be hitting those, regardless, though that’s not what the OP asked for. But I think the planet, overall, could adapt better to nuclear war, especially if it managed to wipe out the humans or cut us back to very low levels, than it will to climate change…and by ‘the planet’ I really mean most other species. Climate change is going to cause a LOT of extinctions…it’s happening and has been happening already. But humans? Overall, we will weather it better than we would an all out nuclear war. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279/26 "2019-08-08T20:02:49Z")
> [@XT](#): > > We are talking about worst case scenarios though. I do agree with you…I think we can adapt to climate change, as a species, better than we could to all out nuclear war. To me, it’s not really even a contest, even if we are talking about the absolute worst climate change scenarios I’ve seen…and, frankly, I think we will not be hitting those, regardless, though that’s not what the OP asked for. But I think the planet, overall, could adapt better to nuclear war, especially if it managed to wipe out the humans or cut us back to very low levels, than it will to climate change…and by ‘the planet’ I really mean most other species. Climate change is going to cause a LOT of extinctions…it’s happening and has been happening already. But humans? Overall, we will weather it better than we would an all out nuclear war. Was it just about the planet though? I mean, yeah, “the planet” would recover just fine. “The planet” doesn’t care either way. If I’m not around (and I would most certainly die in a nuclear war), I’m not gonna care either. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279/27 "2019-08-08T20:05:33Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > Was it just about the planet though? I mean, yeah, “the planet” would recover just fine. “The planet” doesn’t care either way. If I’m not around (and I would most certainly die in a nuclear war), I’m not gonna care either. Like I said, when I mentioned ‘the planet’ I really mean the other species that inhabit the planet. The actual planet won’t care one way or the other. It’s been through much worse than either climate change OR a full on nuclear war. It won’t notice either. But the other species on the planet are going to have a bad time, either way. IMHO, they will have a harder time with climate changes, especially in the worst case scenarios, than they would with nuclear war, as I think more humans would survive climate change and with an intact civilization (both of which are bad for most other species) than in a nuclear war. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279/28 "2019-08-08T20:44:19Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > The two worst case scenarios are pretty much equally bad for the survival of the human species. The biggest difference between them is the timespan. Nuclear winter would hit humanity in a few weeks. Cataclysmic climate change will be occurring over decades. Humanity can achieve a lot over the course of decades, provided we’re sufficiently motivated. The thing is, after a nuclear war, the remnant of humanity will have their pick of some pretty good leftovers. The cities of course will be toast, but there will still be tons of tech and structures still out there, as well as arable land. Biodiversity will strengthen, there will be more species for food and medicine. Humanity could bounce back in a big way. With climate change… I mean, if we have 50 years to get used to the idea of all humanity trying to live on a patch the size of Texas, living off hydroponic corn and roasted giant rats… there’s not a lot of “getting ready” for that, unless you mean mentally preparing to suffer and die. Survival? Maybe. But there’s little to no chance of “bouncing back” in any meaningful way. It’s true that temperatures were much hotter in the past. There were also no humans in those times, so there ya go. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279/29 "2019-08-08T20:49:50Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > The thing is, after a nuclear war, the remnant of humanity will have their pick of some pretty good leftovers. The cities of course will be toast, but there will still be tons of tech and structures still out there, as well as arable land. Biodiversity will strengthen, there will be more species for food and medicine. Humanity could bounce back in a big way. > > With climate change… I mean, if we have 50 years to get used to the idea of all humanity trying to live on a patch the size of Texas, living off hydroponic corn and roasted giant rats… there’s not a lot of “getting ready” for that, unless you mean mentally preparing to suffer and die. Survival? Maybe. But there’s little to no chance of “bouncing back” in any meaningful way. > > It’s true that temperatures were much hotter in the past. There were also no humans in those times, so there ya go. Wait…what? You think or someone is seriously saying that in the worst case climate change scenarios that on the entire planet the only habitable parts for humans would be the size of Texas?? Seriously?? 😕 Because…well, that’s ridiculous. On what timescale do they think that the entire planet will become uninhabitable except for the land area of Texas? I haven’t seen anything that is close to that. What I’ve seen for the worst cases is that, perhaps, much of the equatorial regions might not be habitable by humans, and that we will have sea level rise of, perhaps, 50 meters. That will be bad, no doubt but we’ll have more land for all of humanity than Texas. Do you have a link to a credible source who is seriously claiming this? I really want to know what the time frame they are positing. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279/30 "2019-08-08T21:37:38Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Do you have a link to a credible source who is seriously claiming this? Much as I’d love to spend pages haggling over the definition of “credible” and “serious” with someone who’s already certain they’ll land on the wealthy-nation escape pod, I’m gonna take a hard pass on that. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2019, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279/31 "2019-08-08T21:57:18Z")
So, that would be a ‘no’ with a strawman. Gotcha. That’s kind of what I thought. Carry on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recovering-from-nuclear-war-vs-catastrophic-climate-change/838279.md?page=1)