Minimise the damage to the ship? There will be no ship if action is not taken to avoid catastrophic disaster
Maybe we should slow down a little, as the Titanic should have done. That may give us more time to take evasive action. but that's the problem isn't it?
We just cannot slow down. Have you ever heard of the slogan “strength through exhaustion”?
This is part of the wonderful lectures by Prof. Emeritus Albert Bartlett on the “Exponential Function”.
Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis - Part 7
by Prof. Al Bartlett
VII. What do the experts say?
Now that we have seen the facts let us compare them with statements from authoritative sources. Let us look first at a report to the Congress.
It is clear, particularly in the case of coal, that we have ample reserves.... We have an abundance of coal in the ground. Simply stated, the crux of the problem is how to get it out of the ground and use it in environmentally acceptable ways and on an economically competitive basis... At current levels of output and recovery these reserves can be expected to last more than 500 years.14
Here is one of the most dangerous statements in the literature. It is dangerous because news media and the energy companies pick up the idea that "United States coal will last 500 years" while the media and the energy companies forget or ignore the important caveat with which the sentence began, "At current levels of output . . ." The right-hand column of Table IX shows that at zero rate of growth of consumption even the low estimate of the U.S. coal resource "will last over 500 years." However, it is absolutely clear that the government does not plan to hold coal production constant "at current levels of output."
https://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_forgotten_fundamentals_part_7.html
And there’s the rub!
Minimise the damage to the ship? There will be no ship if action is not taken to avoid catastrophic disaster
Minimize damage < Catastrophic Disaster
“Science” enough for you?
Climate science says if it’s BAU there will be no life on earth.
Could you answer 347010? -- DJ
Not any better than all the proposed ideas that are out there. I planted another tree today. But I also dragged two sticks out of the same woods for a few hours of warmth this winter. I try to vote for environmentally aware candidates and buy a little lower the waste scale.
These are ways to fix a corrupt society as you put it?
Are you talking to me dj? I thought the subject was climate change?
Yes I am. I thought you were also talking about climate change when you raised corrupt society and ways to change it
@djtexas Climate science says if it’s BAU there will be no life on earth.
Interesting, do you have more information on that? "No life on earth" is quite challenging.
Life is very resilient. I think that our civilisation will collapse and that milliards of people will die before we extinct life.
Indeed. Non there less would it be interesting and useful to have some estimation when at least human extinction would occur. As far I know, there is none. This is may be the reason why none concrete actions are taken, its no imminent extinction threat but more of an inconvenience. Immagine how it would be when you’d had a literal deadline, what would be done in order to avoid extinction. I bet mankind wouldn’t care as much about financal expences anymore.
Playing with fire when we talk about tipping points and runaway climate change.
Didirius, have you taken the time to read the IPCC reports?
In the words of the IPCC AR5:
“Global mean temperatures will continue to rise over the 21st century if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue unabated. Under the assumptions of the concentration-driven RCPs, global mean surface temperatures for 2081–2100, relative to 1986–2005 will likely1 be in the 5 to 95% range of the CMIP5 models; 0.3°C to 1.7°C (RCP2.6), 1.1°C to 2.6°C (RCP4.5), 1.4°C to 3.1°C (RCP6.0), 2.6°C to 4.8°C (RCP8.5)”
So, the projection is for the average over the two final decades of the century, and depends on assumptions about future changes in forcings. For the scenario which has the best claim to be a BAU scenario (RCP 8.5) the projected temperature increase is 2.6 to 4.8 C, but depending on how robustly we reduce emissions it may be a lot less than that.).
The effects of this warming
Without a thriving biosphere, there is no future for humans and we are well on the way to the 6th mass extinction
Playing with fire when we talk about tipping points and runaway climate change.-djtexas
This means we have to be careful to not get burned, and stay aware of that, then it shouldn't be a problem to handle fire.
So as I gathered from your intel (thanks for that) the awaited worst case by 2100 would be avarage temperature increase of 5°C. Would mean:
[“Hot-house Earth” incompatible with human civilization, most of the planet becomes uninhabitable, population reduction to one billion] - What different degrees of global warming look like
[The Sixth Mass Extinction, during the last 450 million years there were five before, each destroying 70-95% of previously existing life.] - Sixth Mass Extinction of Wildlife Accelerating: Study | Earth.Org
This considered; this sixth Mass Extinction mainly caused by climate change will not wipe out all life on earth. (With all I mean every last bit of self replicating Amino and Nucleic Acid anywhere on the Planet) “Life is very resilient.”-morgankane01
Mankind on the other hand will have a rough time, without adaption an expectet decrease of suitable habitat leading to population decrease. Which is perhaps severe enough to cause human extinction later in the end. But I think mankind could survive even this worst case in small numbers though enough to avoid extinction. Of course civilisation and lifestile as we know it to day would crumble and change.
I have some trust in the adaptability of humans. To adapt and with that reducing the impact of such a crisis and survive the ods. Let’s not forget the speed of adaptation that the human mind is capable of, instead of having to breed through generations of accidental mutations one thought can lead to change of behaviour and enviroment. Geologicaly and evolutionary speaking its an instant. Like we are seeing with this human made climate change. This speed and the physiological capabilities were what gave mankind the edge in evolution and caused such a thriving in the first place.
Bottom line, yeah it seems human extinction caused by climate change is possible, and in order to enshure its continuing survival past the 22th Century mankind should do something about it. Unless of course humans want to take the risk of extinction.
Without a thriving biosphere, there is no future for humans and we are well on the way to the 6th mass extinction - dj
So what are you going to do about it?
I asked you. You said carry on as you are.
“But I think mankind could survive even this worst case in small numbers though enough to avoid extinction. Of course civilisation and lifestile as we know it to day would crumble and change.”
I would love to see the faces of your grand kids when you told them this comforting news
"Without a thriving biosphere, there is no future for humans and we are well on the way to the 6th mass extinction" – dj
So what are you going to do about it? - mrmhead
Reducing the impact on the biosphere by reducing greenhouse gas composition in the atmosphere by replacing fosile power plant with non-fosile power plants for the stationary part. And for the mobile part keep using fosile fuel until it is replaced with something that has better physical properties.
Regain the general carbon-oxide molecules and reinfuse them into the used energy cycle via ground stations, which filter out the entropic molecules and split them with non-fosile energy and thus create new oxygen and fuel for standart mobile and emergency power plant use.
To put it simple, close this oxygen and carbon based energy cycle for indefinet reuse, and by the way get some control over the atmospheric composition. Keep the benefits of this fuel and recycle it. That would be the basics of what I would do.
And during the time that this isn’t enough, keep adapting to the changes so you don’t get extinct. Certain adaptions to certain enviromental changes.
@didirius
Reducing the impact on the biosphere by reducing greenhouse gas composition in the atmosphere by replacing fosile power plant with non-fosile power plants for the stationary part. And for the mobile part keep using fosile fuel until it is replaced with something that has better physical properties.
Regain the general carbon-oxide molecules and reinfuse them into the used energy cycle via ground stations, which filter out the entropic molecules and split them with non-fosile energy and thus create new oxygen and fuel for standart mobile and emergency power plant use.
To put it simple, close this oxygen and carbon based energy cycle for indefinet reuse, and by the way get some control over the atmospheric composition. Keep the benefits of this fuel and recycle it. That would be the basics of what I would do.
And during the time that this isn’t enough, keep adapting to the changes so you don’t get extinct. Certain adaptions to certain enviromental changes.
Thanks
Regarding the “mobile energy” parts. I wonder if there has been any comprehensive studies on the new “Electric Car” push. Sure, at the “local level” the GHG emission of an electric car is 0 compared to standard combustion engine. But has anyone accounted for how the electricity is generated (coal fired plants?) and transmitted. Also, what is the comparative pollution created in Producing an electric car vs standard combustion?
Another rabbit-hole inquiry: As we all know energy is neither created or destroyed - it is just transformed. Fossil fuels use the energy that is stored in coal, oil, etc. Wind and Solar energy is taking energy out of the environment. What was that energy doing before we hijacked it?
Sure it’s pretty minimal at this stage in the game. And so was dumping waste into waterways a few hundred years ago. But scale it up, over a long term …?
Solar - instead of warming the ground, we intercept it and use it in other ways.
Wind - Our weather patterns are totally dependent on the wind. “What if we change the wind” - Sounds like a fanciful dream, but isn’t that what we’re doing with wind turbines?
I asked you. You said carry on as you are. - dj
That's not what I said.
And I’m asking you.
Why are you being difficult?
@mrmhead Regarding the “mobile energy” parts. I wonder if there has been any comprehensive studies on the new "Electric Car" push. Sure, at the “local level” the GHG emission of an electric car is 0 compared to the standard combustion engine. But has anyone accounted for how the electricity is generated (coal fired plants?) And transmitted. Also, what is the comparative pollution created in Producing an electric car vs standard combustion?
I know what you mean. Briefly search found this for start. https://www.zemo.org.uk/assets/workingdocuments/MC-P-11-15a%20Lifecycle%20emissions%20report.pdf
Another rabbit-hole inquiry: As we all know energy is neither created or destroyed – it is just transformed. Fossil fuels use the energy that is stored in coal, oil, etc. Wind and Solar energy is taking energy out of the environment. What was that energy doing before we hijacked it?
Sure it’s pretty minimal at this stage in the game. And so was dumping waste into waterways a few hundred years ago. But scale it up, over a long term …?
Solar – instead of warming the ground, we intercept it and use it in other ways.
Wind – Our weather patterns are totally dependent on the wind. “What if we change the wind” – Sounds like a fanciful dream, but isn’t that what we’re doing with wind turbines?
Most energy was and is fusion energy radiated by the local sun. A bit (including rotation) was energy from the forming planet. And another small amount is radioactive material. All the energy stored in fosile carbon was sunlight converted by photosythesis in the past. Solar energy so to speak. In the energy cycle this carbon based molecules are merely a battery.
As for Wind and Solar energy hijacked, there is never 100% of it absorbed, only reduced. No wind park is able to stop the wind. And in the long term, wind is always replenished by the inbalance of pressure and temperature in the atmosphere caused by the light. The primary energy source here is the sun. And to hijack all the solar energy from the planet you’d have to cover it in shadow. By using this sources you only borrow a small amount of its energy which in the end will be released again due to general heatloss in transformation.
Mr Head, that’s exactly what you said. Changing the infrastructure which is all you have suggested when asked what is to be done to prevent catastrophic AGW, does jack to global emissions which in turn means it will surely end us with runaway effects
