Massive permafrost thaw documented in Canada, portending huge carbon release(insideclimatenews.org)
insideclimatenews.org
Massive permafrost thaw documented in Canada, portending huge carbon release
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia
253 comments
Actually, escalating death of plankton and growth of anoxic zones are more important: it will cause systemic collapse of marine food chain. Storm damage can be mitigated(e.g. netherlands)
http://www.sciencealert.com/ocean-oxygen-levels-are-dropping...
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-black-sea-short-term-oxygen-lo...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/31/bay-beng...
Well, it's evolutionary pressure in action. Plankton will survive, and the ones who survive will have more food available
Algae will probably avail of the increased CO2 concentrations as well.
Algae will probably avail of the increased CO2 concentrations as well.
Evolution doesn't care if specific X species survives in its niche, but X species could be much more important than Y species.
Extinction of keystone species(plankton X) will trigger dieoff down the food chain. Survivor species(plankton Y) which exploits extinction event environment don't have to contribute to the food chain:
https://www.ecomagazine.com/news/science/indian-ocean-fish-d...
That's not how that works. CO2 is not a limiting reagent in photosynthesis.
You claim that the scenario you describe is happening "NOW". Could you provide a citation for that claim? Or even better, are people betting money that it is true, as might be represented with a greater-than-inflation rise in premiums for flood insurance, home owners insurance, or umbrella insurance in the affected geographies?
Insurance companies are taking climate change seriously, for sure. I found [1] after some quick googling.
[1] http://evanmills.lbl.gov/pubs/pdf/climate-action-insurance.p...
[1] http://evanmills.lbl.gov/pubs/pdf/climate-action-insurance.p...
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
>The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.
>The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.
Bad information. From the noaa website [0], a more scientific assessment reports:
"It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity."
So no detectable increase (even statistically, which I consider to be a much weaker requirement than actual subjective experience).
[0] https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
"It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity."
So no detectable increase (even statistically, which I consider to be a much weaker requirement than actual subjective experience).
[0] https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Scientific article examining the downward trend in Australia's cyclone numbers :
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asl2.502/full
Long‐term changes in Australian tropical cyclone numbers
"Numerous data quality checks were used in this study, as noted above, and there are no known systematic errors in the observations or analyses that would be likely to produce the decreasing trend in TC #s examined here. This suggests the possibility that the downward trend may be associated with changes in environmental conditions. Studies such as Emanuel (2005) indicate that the changes in various different environmental conditions that are occurring due to anthropogenic influences are having an influence on TC activity in some regions of the world. In the Australian region, one possible physical explanation for a decreasing trend in TC #s could be a potential long-term shift in environmental conditions towards a more El Niño-like state, given that fewer TCs tend to occur in the Australian region during El Niño than La Niña conditions. Although the NIN and SOI data used here did not show a significant long-term trend, some studies suggest the possibility of a shift towards more El Niño-like conditions, relating to a possible weakening of the Walker circulation due to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (Vecchi et al., 2006; Power and Smith, 2007; Huang et al., 2013; DiNezio et al., 2013). However, it is also noted that considerable uncertainty exists in observed changes to the Walker circulation based on reanalyses (Compo et al., 2011)."
"Numerous data quality checks were used in this study, as noted above, and there are no known systematic errors in the observations or analyses that would be likely to produce the decreasing trend in TC #s examined here. This suggests the possibility that the downward trend may be associated with changes in environmental conditions. Studies such as Emanuel (2005) indicate that the changes in various different environmental conditions that are occurring due to anthropogenic influences are having an influence on TC activity in some regions of the world. In the Australian region, one possible physical explanation for a decreasing trend in TC #s could be a potential long-term shift in environmental conditions towards a more El Niño-like state, given that fewer TCs tend to occur in the Australian region during El Niño than La Niña conditions. Although the NIN and SOI data used here did not show a significant long-term trend, some studies suggest the possibility of a shift towards more El Niño-like conditions, relating to a possible weakening of the Walker circulation due to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (Vecchi et al., 2006; Power and Smith, 2007; Huang et al., 2013; DiNezio et al., 2013). However, it is also noted that considerable uncertainty exists in observed changes to the Walker circulation based on reanalyses (Compo et al., 2011)."
As you likely know, if you have any insurance and have looked into your coverage in any depth, insurance covers a lot less than one expects. Also when an insured event happens typically the insurer will amend the policy (without changing the premiums, of course) to exclude that eventuality (also typically excluding your "neighbours" as well). Further insurers will typically require say homeowners in a flood-prone zone to take additional precautions periodically. So far example maintaining barrier walls, etc.
Therefore insurance premiums or losses may be difficult to compare year to year. Certainly insurances companies have factored global warming into their models and are changing their rates accordingly. To not do so would be grounds for shareholder lawsuits I should think.
There are as many climate deniers in insurance companies as there are atheists in foxholes. :>
Therefore insurance premiums or losses may be difficult to compare year to year. Certainly insurances companies have factored global warming into their models and are changing their rates accordingly. To not do so would be grounds for shareholder lawsuits I should think.
There are as many climate deniers in insurance companies as there are atheists in foxholes. :>
One indicator is the trend of increased tidal flooding on the US east coast over the past few decades:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/04/science/globa...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/04/science/globa...
Hurricanes? New Orleans will never recover. That same season saw a couple other storms that were just as strong but luckily missed worst case scenarios.
I wouldn't be shocked if cat five hurricanes became pretty common in a couple of decades due to warmer waters, and one or two of those a year would devastate coastal economies.
But I'm not a weatherman...
I wouldn't be shocked if cat five hurricanes became pretty common in a couple of decades due to warmer waters, and one or two of those a year would devastate coastal economies.
But I'm not a weatherman...
And these statements are based on what?
There have been some major earthquakes around the world in the last 20 years, are they also caused by global warming? Do you project an increase in them in the next 20 years?
Here's a page with good, updated information about global warming and hurricanes: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Here's a page with good, updated information about global warming and hurricanes: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Melting icecaps over Greenland and Antarctica will almost certainly result in seismic, and potentially volcanic activity, as the continental plate rises, having been relieved of kilometers worth of ice cap.
Though the timescale will likely be on the order of decades or centuries, not 20 years.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080314-warmi...
Though the timescale will likely be on the order of decades or centuries, not 20 years.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080314-warmi...
Actually Wisconsin isn't by any fault lines and occasionally gets an earth quake (very small). From the glacier recession of the last ice age. Turns out glaciers are heavy and bedrock is still uncompressing.
So we do have proof of weather changes causing earthquakes.
Though I doubt anyone has data or models that would be useful for this tangent. At least for oceanic fault lines, which could be affected by ocean rise.
So we do have proof of weather changes causing earthquakes.
Though I doubt anyone has data or models that would be useful for this tangent. At least for oceanic fault lines, which could be affected by ocean rise.
Earthquakes have no known cause so doesn't support your point well
> Far before ppl are forced from the shores by rising waters they will be forced from the shores by massive, frequent, destructive storms that, instead of say destroying 1/1000 homes, will destroy 1/100. Eventually it will be economically non-viable to live in storm-prone zones.
It's possible to build homes that are much more resistant to storms than current homes [1], although they cost more than the currently most popular designs. Wouldn't a shift to such homes keep it viable to live in those storm-prone zones?
[1] http://www.deltechomes.com/learn-more/hurricane-resistance/
It's possible to build homes that are much more resistant to storms than current homes [1], although they cost more than the currently most popular designs. Wouldn't a shift to such homes keep it viable to live in those storm-prone zones?
[1] http://www.deltechomes.com/learn-more/hurricane-resistance/
Not likely. Using the parent example that climate change causes the risk of destruction from a hurricane to increase from 0.1% to 1%, consider that 1000 homes of the old type for 100k each would cost $100 million.
Replacing 10 of these costs 1 million - but let's be generous and assume that you need to do this every 6 years, and use a 30-year period for our analysis. That brings our total cost to $105 million. If all the new homes survive undamaged, you have to build 1000 hurricane-resistant homes for less than $105 million to make the project viable, an increase of 5%. Looking briefly at that page, none of those features look particularly cheap. You'd probably burn your $5000 on just finishing the underside of the floor joists to elevate the home on those pilings, to say nothing of their fancy shapes or high-spec materials.
Replacing 10 of these costs 1 million - but let's be generous and assume that you need to do this every 6 years, and use a 30-year period for our analysis. That brings our total cost to $105 million. If all the new homes survive undamaged, you have to build 1000 hurricane-resistant homes for less than $105 million to make the project viable, an increase of 5%. Looking briefly at that page, none of those features look particularly cheap. You'd probably burn your $5000 on just finishing the underside of the floor joists to elevate the home on those pilings, to say nothing of their fancy shapes or high-spec materials.
Damage affects not just houses, but all structures: gardens, landscaping, freshwater and sewage lines, electrical and internet service, roads, etc.
With time, you're also looking at massively increased erosion. It's hard to have a house if there's no land under it at all.
With time, you're also looking at massively increased erosion. It's hard to have a house if there's no land under it at all.
What's wrong with migration? People do that anyway when they move out of their parent's house and into their own, often in another city. You describe storms becoming more frequent, which is something insurance companies will see a mile away and increase premiums or refuse to provide cover for. That will reduce the value of property in those areas and property buyers will go further inland instead. It sounds like some poor property investor might be left holding the bag if he doesn't sell his coastal city building in time. Instead of feeling sad for his loss, perhaps trust that he knows what he's doing and will sell it in time so the migration happens gradually and for incremental economic reasons rather than as a sudden emergency.
Your energy argument doesn't add up. Increasing the thermal energy of everything in a system doesn't make it able to do more work (violent storms). Storms are driven by heat flowing from hot to cold. Not from hot to also-hot. If you show that temperature differences between parts of the ocean/atmosphere are going to become more extreme, then more severe storms would make sense. That could be caused by cold things getting colder or hot things getting hotter.
Your energy argument doesn't add up. Increasing the thermal energy of everything in a system doesn't make it able to do more work (violent storms). Storms are driven by heat flowing from hot to cold. Not from hot to also-hot. If you show that temperature differences between parts of the ocean/atmosphere are going to become more extreme, then more severe storms would make sense. That could be caused by cold things getting colder or hot things getting hotter.
>What's wrong with migration? People do that anyway when they move out of their parent's house and into their own, often in another city
This is hardly the kind of migration we're talking about. Come on... a bit of intellectual honesty goes a long way.
This is hardly the kind of migration we're talking about. Come on... a bit of intellectual honesty goes a long way.
There may be a bit of short distance migration if the sea rises. It's projected to rise a meter or two this century so people could build inland a bit, planning permission willing.
A 2m rise is going to cause way more than "maybe a bit of short distance migration".
It's going going to be a lot worse, by an order of magnitude, than the current war refugee migrant crises currently in Europe, and will be happening globally at that.
It's going going to be a lot worse, by an order of magnitude, than the current war refugee migrant crises currently in Europe, and will be happening globally at that.
[deleted]
As no one has mentioned it in the comments, the belief that this is concerning is related to the "Clathrate gun hypothesis"[1].
Essentially, low temperatures have allowed vast quantities of methane and carbon dioxide containing compounds to accumulate for millennia. If the temperatures rise above a critical threshold, a positive feedback loop would exist between temperatures and global warming.
Positive feedback loops are scary.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
Essentially, low temperatures have allowed vast quantities of methane and carbon dioxide containing compounds to accumulate for millennia. If the temperatures rise above a critical threshold, a positive feedback loop would exist between temperatures and global warming.
Positive feedback loops are scary.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
The feedback loop peaks out at a global temperature increase of 5-8 degrees celsius, if the models and past events are to be believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maxim...
There is a lot of ignorance regarding what 5-8 degree warming means. The worst case scenario (and that is the only one we should be concerned with!) is a global mass extinction event. We've already had 5 of them - one of which was due to runaway greenhouse warming -
https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/big-five-extinction...
We cannot be sure we'll stop at 5 degrees or 8 degrees. After that we will have a mass extinction event, and humans would most likely not survive it.
How would every last human die? I mean, sure, millions or even billions . . . but not one human surviving with all the resources and resourcefulness we have at our disposal?
Oxygen and nutrition; we can't even get self-sustaining bio domes working now, despite decades of attempts.
We could solve the problem, sure, but it's a race against time while society is crumbling, in this scenario.
We could solve the problem, sure, but it's a race against time while society is crumbling, in this scenario.
You'd be surprised what we could get to work if the survival of humanity depended upon it. You'd better believe we'd get self sustaining bio domes working tout de suite if that were the only way to ensure our survival.
It could be difficult to see the forest for the trees. In this model the sea level rising would flood many of the largest cities on earth, resources would certainly be focused on managing the onslaught of climate refugees that result.
OTOH, the Manhattan Project occurred during a time of near-total war; so there's hope.
OTOH, the Manhattan Project occurred during a time of near-total war; so there's hope.
There are more than enough nukes out there to do the job. Famines and massive numbers of refugees will almost inevitably lead to wars...
The recent Syrian refugee crisis, which has been thought to be among the first crisises partially induced by global warming (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-...), has already ensured most of the EU has right extremism on the rise and sometimes already strongly influencing governments.
Fighting over the remaining resources of course.
Previous instances of warming have seen all land mammals of greater than, IIRC, 10 kg, gone extinct.
Widespread ecosystemic impacts can be profound, and difficult to model.
Widespread ecosystemic impacts can be profound, and difficult to model.
The world is already going through a mass extinction event. By the destruction of habitat and direct hunting, species are going extinct at an alarming rate.
Isn't a 5 - 8 degree rise catastrophic though? Genuine question.
Depends on what you consider catastrophic. 5-8C means you lose both the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, so you get 60m (200 ft) sea-level rise, so you totally lose all the coastal cities, and the current round of civilization is almost certainly done for. But homo sapiens will probably survive, and so civilization will probably eventually be rebuilt. It won't be the end of life on earth under any circumstances.
Actually, the biggest danger is that political instability brought on by climate change will lead to nuclear war. That would be much worse than losing civilization to climate change because it would happen much faster, essentially instantaneously. That is not at all unlikely even under much more modest warming scenarios.
Actually, the biggest danger is that political instability brought on by climate change will lead to nuclear war. That would be much worse than losing civilization to climate change because it would happen much faster, essentially instantaneously. That is not at all unlikely even under much more modest warming scenarios.
But homo sapiens will probably survive, and so civilization will probably eventually be rebuilt
I'm guess you meant that cleverness doesn't make us any more extinction-proof. But actually it does. Cleverness is a huge advantage in the survival game.
Thanks for the correction re: more versus less. But I'll still posit that this is an arrogant line of thinking:
Edit: one way humans will extinctionize our species:
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-scientists-categorize-earth-to...
We're basically driving this car full speed towards the cliff. No amount of cleverness will stop this.
Cleverness is a huge advantage in the survival game.
Edit: one way humans will extinctionize our species:
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-scientists-categorize-earth-to...
We're basically driving this car full speed towards the cliff. No amount of cleverness will stop this.
The relation might not be linear though.
[deleted]
Just because humans are slightly more clever than past dominant species doesn't make us any less extinction-proof.
I've suggested: the anti-ant.
Ants, individually, are stupid. Collectively, they're intelligent, and solve complex problems.
Humans, individually, are brilliant (by animal standards). Collectively, not so much.
Ants, individually, are stupid. Collectively, they're intelligent, and solve complex problems.
Humans, individually, are brilliant (by animal standards). Collectively, not so much.
Right, you get 5-8 C (9-14 F) increase in global mean temperature. That mostly translates, I think, to temperature increases during winter, and at higher latitudes. Biomes will both be shifted poleward and warped, and that will happen faster than some component species can adapt.
The good news is that runaway greenhouse warming won't evaporate oceans and bake out CO2 from surface rocks :)
The good news is that runaway greenhouse warming won't evaporate oceans and bake out CO2 from surface rocks :)
Why would civilization be over? The sea rise wouldn't happen over night and people would move or build walls.
We already have tremendous political instability in the US and Europe right now caused in part by a not-so-great-but-not-devastating economy and the Syrian refugee crisis. Imagine a worldwide crisis with tens or hundreds of millions of people losing their homes and livelihood, how is that going to play out?
40% of global population lives in coastal areas of lesser elevation than 50m.[1] That is more like 3 billion people. Syrian refugee crisis seems quite insignificant in comparison. Of course, only one of those is currently underway, and we don't really know how fast sea levels will rise.
[1] http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodolog...
[1] http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodolog...
>We already have tremendous political instability in the US and Europe right now
This is definitely not true for the US. At least not by any global notion of political instability. The US government isn't near collapse, there is a very limited likelihood of any kind of coup, the economy is doing very well, and riots have been very rare.
There is a lot of political bickering, but it doesn't seem to be any more-so than during the last party-in-the-office changes (Clinton to Bush, Bush to Obama).
This is definitely not true for the US. At least not by any global notion of political instability. The US government isn't near collapse, there is a very limited likelihood of any kind of coup, the economy is doing very well, and riots have been very rare.
There is a lot of political bickering, but it doesn't seem to be any more-so than during the last party-in-the-office changes (Clinton to Bush, Bush to Obama).
Florida is porous. You can build walls but they don't do much. The water will rise to cover the entire peninsula.
Long before that tides and storm surge will destroy all of the surface roads to coastal cities. I wouldn't lend money there for longer than 30years.
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml
Because a 60 meter high seawall around pretty much all of the country would be a bit problematic material wise alone (you'd have to chop down a couple of major mountains, assuming you have those), coupled with the slight problem of then having to get rid of all the water landing in your nice new bathtub by precipitation.
A seawall isn't just a wall, it's more like a dike if it is to survive and that means it has a width many times larger than it's height.
And then there is seepage to contend with. This is anything but a trivial problem and we have never done engineering on that scale before.
The easiest solution would be to move to higher ground.
A seawall isn't just a wall, it's more like a dike if it is to survive and that means it has a width many times larger than it's height.
And then there is seepage to contend with. This is anything but a trivial problem and we have never done engineering on that scale before.
The easiest solution would be to move to higher ground.
idlewords(1)
That's a lot of people to move and things to rebuild. Op did say "the current round of civilization". I also agree that lots of things changing at once are likely to create instability, with negative economic and social impacts (unless governments massively intervene, which I suspect many in the US would not appreciate).
I'm sure walls are an option, but they will be expensive to maintain and it doesn't take much to have big consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_in_New_Orleans
I'm sure walls are an option, but they will be expensive to maintain and it doesn't take much to have big consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_in_New_Orleans
And that was just on a city scale. Doing this country or continent wide is engineering on an entirely different level. NL has something like this but it's only 30 feet high and extrapolating from that experience to something able to withstand 60 meters of ocean (which is dynamic, an an average of 60 meters does not include storm surges and tides) is making me think this is infeasible.
>That's a lot of people to move and things to rebuild. Op did say "the current round of civilization".
If that's the bar for civilization ending, then civilization ended when people came to the US, ended again when they expanded out to the West, etc.
Just because people on the US coasts move means little to the 60 percent of citizens that don't live near the ocean.
And again, it's not going to happen overnight. A wall of water isn't coming in that will force everyone to put their things in a car and go. It will be slow build-up that slowly forces people out as they decide it's to expensive to mitigate.
If that's the bar for civilization ending, then civilization ended when people came to the US, ended again when they expanded out to the West, etc.
Just because people on the US coasts move means little to the 60 percent of citizens that don't live near the ocean.
And again, it's not going to happen overnight. A wall of water isn't coming in that will force everyone to put their things in a car and go. It will be slow build-up that slowly forces people out as they decide it's to expensive to mitigate.
"If that's the bar for civilization ending, then civilization ended when people came to the US, ended again when they expanded out to the West, etc."
Interesting that your example is literally true both times for the people who where there earlier.
Interesting that your example is literally true both times for the people who where there earlier.
> Actually, the biggest danger is that political instability brought on by climate change will lead to nuclear war
Can you please elaborate on this point?
Can you please elaborate on this point?
Elaborate how?
The dipshits in Russia, China and US will push buttons in their briefcases and we are all going to burn (or die of starvation soon after).
5-8C would lead to mass starvation. Our agricultural systems are built on extremely well adapted crop varieties for the regions they grow in. The lead-in time for generation of new crop varieties is very long (even with genetic modification). Rapid catastrophic climate change, with major associated changes in pest and disease prevelence, would simply overwhelm our ability to generate adapted crop varieties to maintain yield. Add to that more extreme weather events. Then on top of all this, investment on agricultural science has been declining for years, precisely at the time when plant breeders should be focusing on what is happening 20-30 years from now.
Don't we pretty much already have a massive oversupply of calories?
In a perfect world where food distribution isn't affected by things like spoilage, lack of transport infrastructure, politics, trade barriers, diversion of food crops to biofuels, monopolies, war etc. etc., we may have an oversupply. In reality, it's not even close, given that yield increases in staple crops like wheat are beginning to flat-line, and population growth marches ever onwards (and millions are lifted out of poverty to the middle class).
The Green Revolution was through picking all the low-hanging fruit - hybrid crops and synthetic fertilizers. Increasing yield to match demand is already looking like an issue without the effect of catastrophic climate change. Other issues occurring in the next 20-30 years include encroachment of cities into prime arable land, land degradation, and increased cost/reduced availability of phosphorous fertilizers.
It's a massive issue that barely registers on the public conscience, and we may hit the perfect storm soon, particularly if a new nasty rust or plant virus pops up on the scene at the same time.
The Green Revolution was through picking all the low-hanging fruit - hybrid crops and synthetic fertilizers. Increasing yield to match demand is already looking like an issue without the effect of catastrophic climate change. Other issues occurring in the next 20-30 years include encroachment of cities into prime arable land, land degradation, and increased cost/reduced availability of phosphorous fertilizers.
It's a massive issue that barely registers on the public conscience, and we may hit the perfect storm soon, particularly if a new nasty rust or plant virus pops up on the scene at the same time.
Yes, it's not the temperature (though that would already cause lots of problems) it's the secondary effects such as oceans rising, likely a change in the gulfstream and so on.
I don't think they had coastal cities or farming back then.
2c seems pretty bad. I guess 5 means no coral reefs, smaller rivers, smaller Antarctica. Permanent northwest passage is a consolation prize, I guess.
6 degrees renders large areas of the topics uninhabitable by humans. As in: extended periods where 100% humidity + outside temperature above human body temperature.
On any given day, absent technology, this will kill you in a matter of hours.
Indonesia (100+ million people) is a climate area that would experience this).
On any given day, absent technology, this will kill you in a matter of hours.
Indonesia (100+ million people) is a climate area that would experience this).
I'm sorry, but I need to question the validity of this claim. People have been living in very warm climates for a very long time.
I myself have been camping in the Mojave for several days at a time with temperatures high above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
Are you implying that the combination of heat and humidity is the deadly combination? If so, can you provide some evidence?
I myself have been camping in the Mojave for several days at a time with temperatures high above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
Are you implying that the combination of heat and humidity is the deadly combination? If so, can you provide some evidence?
High ambient humidity means no net evaporation of your sweat so no cooling effect of sweating. If the ambient temperature is above body temperature and humidity is high, you won't be able to cool yourself and will quickly overheat (keep in mind that you already generate 100 W resting). Your experience in the hot desert was different because it was very dry.
if that feedback loop is in addition to the warming we do on our own, that would plausibly put it us kind of close to the cretaceous hot house side of this plot https://xkcd.com/1379/
5-8c is massive.
If you live in a temperate climate,
20c is quite pleasant and warm.
28c is getting into the range of a really hot day.
If you live in a temperate climate,
20c is quite pleasant and warm.
28c is getting into the range of a really hot day.
Remember the sun wasn't so bright then either.
If you're talking about when all the coal was buried, that was about 350 million years ago in the Carboniferous Period (so named because that's when the plant matter that became our coal was laid down). And yeah, it does appear the Sun was about 2-3% less intense, corresponding to roughly 2-3 degrees Celsius in the case of a blackbody at equilibrium in space.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/files/2013/01/sun-gr...
That's a pretty neat fact, I didn't know the sun was measurably brightening over that timespan.
So the obvious solution is we just need to darken the sun a bit. </s>
So the obvious solution is we just need to darken the sun a bit. </s>
Interesting. Can anyone recommend a book that gives a good overview of current climate science? And what hypothetical scenarios may exist in the future?
An excellent introductory book is Storms of My Grandchildren by James Hansen. It speaks to the science and directly addresses the common objections that deniers bring up.
What surprised me is that the science comes at this from multiple angles, so even if someone were to dispute the computer models, then we have other lines of science that still back the theories, e.g. looking at the environment over geologic time scales where we can see what the climate was like under certain CO2 levels.
What surprised me is that the science comes at this from multiple angles, so even if someone were to dispute the computer models, then we have other lines of science that still back the theories, e.g. looking at the environment over geologic time scales where we can see what the climate was like under certain CO2 levels.
James Hansen is the Doctor Oz of climate change. Dude will release study after study before they hit peer review. He's a god damn charlatan.
https://theconversation.com/study-predicts-multi-meter-sea-l...
https://theconversation.com/study-predicts-multi-meter-sea-l...
Be careful, as your sources are suspect and don't speak to his research.
Your mashable link is a summary of a piece from Glover Park Group, in their own words they turn 'strategies into outcomes', so they seem to be a firm that gets paid to shape public opinion. For that reason alone we should dismiss the messenger.
While your 'the conversation.com' link seems broken, but searching on their site for Hansen returns a first result that is critical of carbon tax programs, seemingly favoring emissions trading. Yet, emissions trading is largely seen as benefiting banks to give them a new financial instrument to trade while not actually reducing carbon emissions. So, I'm left somewhat skeptical about conclusions coming from that site as well.
What I'd rather see is a critique of Hansen's papers coming from the scientific community. I would give that an honest read and open consideration.
Your mashable link is a summary of a piece from Glover Park Group, in their own words they turn 'strategies into outcomes', so they seem to be a firm that gets paid to shape public opinion. For that reason alone we should dismiss the messenger.
While your 'the conversation.com' link seems broken, but searching on their site for Hansen returns a first result that is critical of carbon tax programs, seemingly favoring emissions trading. Yet, emissions trading is largely seen as benefiting banks to give them a new financial instrument to trade while not actually reducing carbon emissions. So, I'm left somewhat skeptical about conclusions coming from that site as well.
What I'd rather see is a critique of Hansen's papers coming from the scientific community. I would give that an honest read and open consideration.
Ok. Two screaming kids... while i don't have time to find the direct sources of scientific comment, they should be referenced in the following article about Hansen's 2015 paper.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/
Lol. Don't read the comments, while i find judith to be above board, many of her fans are definitely rabid troglodytes.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/
Lol. Don't read the comments, while i find judith to be above board, many of her fans are definitely rabid troglodytes.
Heard and agreed. Somewhere i have quotes from his peers on the topic. Those are the fastest i could find in a rush. Will look tonight.
More like the Wizard of Oz of climate change - Hansen is an outright alarmist. I'm afraid my mad-hatter friend (whom I posted of earlier) has been reading Hansen's book with all critical faculties disabled.
I hoped that on hacker news folks would provide a reason for why his research/conclusions are wrong, rather than simply offer up character attacks.
Do you have an example of where his research is wrong or his conclusions were overly pessimistic?
Do you have an example of where his research is wrong or his conclusions were overly pessimistic?
It is a mistake to believe
- that there is anyone lurking on HN who is able to argue on this topic as authoritatively as James Hansen and
- that such a person would be willing to educate you here.
You might try
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+james+hansen+wrong%3F
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Criticism
- that there is anyone lurking on HN who is able to argue on this topic as authoritatively as James Hansen and
- that such a person would be willing to educate you here.
You might try
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+james+hansen+wrong%3F
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Criticism
If you had googled it for me then you'd have seen that much of the search results echo what you said earlier--that people take issue with Hansen's advocacy, but say very little about his science.
When it does speak to the science (the first result refutes a 1988 paper), it seems a quick validation shows that his predications were not correct in 2010 when the article was written, but his prediction is inline with current temperatures reported.
So, yeh, I did look into this already, and haven't found a good critique. So, rather than blindly repeat claims that Hansen is wrong or an alarmist, I urge you to critically read the topic before spreading others lies further.
When it does speak to the science (the first result refutes a 1988 paper), it seems a quick validation shows that his predications were not correct in 2010 when the article was written, but his prediction is inline with current temperatures reported.
So, yeh, I did look into this already, and haven't found a good critique. So, rather than blindly repeat claims that Hansen is wrong or an alarmist, I urge you to critically read the topic before spreading others lies further.
I always suggest Spencer Weart's extensively hyperlinked "The Discovery of Global Warming", available online from the American Institute of Physics: http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
The latest IPCC report summary for policymakers is a relatively quick and easy read of the current-ish state of the art.
If you want an initial overview without all the hype, try:http://www.amplifier.gatech.edu/contributors/blogs/posts/201...
Geo-engineering projects could not come too soon.
Because of how grand they are in scale, they don't seem to get much attention from the mainstream scientific community, but it seems feasible technologically (albeit expensive) to put forth major projects to reflect sunlight over deserts and capture significant amounts of carbon from power plants and oceans, amongst numerous other creative approaches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering#Proposed_s...
There was an article on HN recently about a new material that is excellent for cooling due to radiating energy primarily in the long-wavelength infrared spectrum. Just another option, just a matter of mass production and adoption.
Because of how grand they are in scale, they don't seem to get much attention from the mainstream scientific community, but it seems feasible technologically (albeit expensive) to put forth major projects to reflect sunlight over deserts and capture significant amounts of carbon from power plants and oceans, amongst numerous other creative approaches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering#Proposed_s...
There was an article on HN recently about a new material that is excellent for cooling due to radiating energy primarily in the long-wavelength infrared spectrum. Just another option, just a matter of mass production and adoption.
The conversation about climate change is going to morph into a conversation about directed geo-engineering over the next 70 years or so. Earth is a semi-closed system of energy and matter flows, and it's not useful to think about it as this static environment that we inhabit. Rather, it's clear that the activities that humans want to perform result in fairly heavy modification of a lot of the geo and biophysical cycles that result in conditions favorable to human civilization. Unbounded inputs (such as our carbon inputs) are inevitably going to lead to unacceptable equilibrium conditions, and so we need to take more direct control of these various geophysical processes.
To me, this seems like a natural extension of our hydrological management projects, and of our reshaping of the biosphere to our liking. Take the continental US as an example - we have totally transformed the ecosystem from primeval forests and plains into this totally human-managed ecosystem of crop lands and domesticated animals. The next step is to think about the entire planetary biosphere, and apply large-scale engineering projects to directly modifying and managing it. Emissions control is a primitive way to do that, but it will eventually have to be more comprehensive and sophisticated. Eventually we need to sequester atmospheric carbon, but we also need to manage things like ocean acidity and the nitrogen cycle - all of these are critical factors in the set of geo/biophysical systems that create planetary conditions favorable for human civilization.
The trick is to develop and deploy these methods fast enough that we can race ahead of climate conditions that become too unfavorable to support a civilization that is capable of deploying them. I think people underestimate how much can be accomplished on that front in a very short amount of time, but that still doesn't excuse the complacency about it. In particular, I'm frustrated by the lack of urgency when it comes to preserving what remains of the "natural world" - at this point, I'm basically writing off a lot of the natural diversity that exists currently, and expect that the current mass extinction event will be the most severe in planetary history. Even if human civilization survives, it will exist in a mostly artificial biosphere with a tremendously streamlined set of species.
To me, this seems like a natural extension of our hydrological management projects, and of our reshaping of the biosphere to our liking. Take the continental US as an example - we have totally transformed the ecosystem from primeval forests and plains into this totally human-managed ecosystem of crop lands and domesticated animals. The next step is to think about the entire planetary biosphere, and apply large-scale engineering projects to directly modifying and managing it. Emissions control is a primitive way to do that, but it will eventually have to be more comprehensive and sophisticated. Eventually we need to sequester atmospheric carbon, but we also need to manage things like ocean acidity and the nitrogen cycle - all of these are critical factors in the set of geo/biophysical systems that create planetary conditions favorable for human civilization.
The trick is to develop and deploy these methods fast enough that we can race ahead of climate conditions that become too unfavorable to support a civilization that is capable of deploying them. I think people underestimate how much can be accomplished on that front in a very short amount of time, but that still doesn't excuse the complacency about it. In particular, I'm frustrated by the lack of urgency when it comes to preserving what remains of the "natural world" - at this point, I'm basically writing off a lot of the natural diversity that exists currently, and expect that the current mass extinction event will be the most severe in planetary history. Even if human civilization survives, it will exist in a mostly artificial biosphere with a tremendously streamlined set of species.
> Geo-engineering projects could not
> come too soon
Jesus! I'm glad people don't take that stand in other areas of science. If we did that 20 years ago we never would have found out that ulcers are caused by bacteria.
"Ulcers aren't caused by stress, they are caused by bacteria!"
"Heresy!! String him up!!!"
"Ulcers aren't caused by stress, they are caused by bacteria!"
"Heresy!! String him up!!!"
Bacteria-ulcers weren't proven by people who really really really wanted them to be true, they were proven by a doctor, using (fairly unconventional) scientific methods.
If you've got compelling historical sources for holocaust denial or compelling scientific evidence against climate change, let's see it.
If you've got compelling historical sources for holocaust denial or compelling scientific evidence against climate change, let's see it.
The problem is that there are lots of people that really really want climate change (or rather its effects) to be true. Just look here in this thread people willing to swear that hurricane activity has increased due to global warming, while there is no evidence yet that this has happened ( https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ ).
Before your automatic downvote, I'm not denying climate change and some of its future effects (maybe even catastrophic). But the fact that it's happening doesn't explain or justify why people seem so eager to see its effects in everything even without a scientific proof whatsoever.
Before your automatic downvote, I'm not denying climate change and some of its future effects (maybe even catastrophic). But the fact that it's happening doesn't explain or justify why people seem so eager to see its effects in everything even without a scientific proof whatsoever.
If the problem is that that makes other people ignore overwhelming scientific evidence, those ignoring the evidence are no less dangerous and ignorant.
or compelling scientific evidence against climate change
Oh please. No one would even try in this political climate. As you said "don't believe in climate change? you are a nazi".
Oh please. No one would even try in this political climate. As you said "don't believe in climate change? you are a nazi".
> No one would even try in
> this political climate
Nice try. Scientific evidence, please?
Yep. We also need to start treating people who don't believe in anthroponegic global warming the same as regular climate change deniers. Because at the end of the day both groups fight against efforts to curtail global warming.
Behold the death of science.
Right, because of all that obvious evidence of stuff that hasn't happened yet but might.
All that evidence that hasn't nappened yet, like Arctic ice melting, drunken trees, pest and other plant and animal ranges moving poleward and upward, growing seasons starting earlier in spring, etc. Oh wait, those have happened…
We also need to treat people that ignore evidence of racial differences the same then.
It is obvious to see - marathon runners, sprinters, etc
It is obvious to see - marathon runners, sprinters, etc
We don't ignore it. There's just not very much high quality evidence, and — unlike climate change — knowing that the distribution curve for blue vs green people is shifted over 5 IQ points gives virtually nobody any actionable information. Generally, in fact, it's leapt upon by people who don't understand the evidence or enough statistics as a cover for their prejudice.
What's so supposedly obvious? The best sprinters and marathon runners both are "black" according to conventional racial categorization. If you want to tell whether someone is likely to be a good sprinter, looking at their "race" alone is practically useless.
So about 50% of US citizens you would treat like holocaust deniers/flat-earthers?
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climat...
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climat...
Yes. I consider the view both offensive and dangerous.
Further, unless you're a climate-change scientist, holding anything other than the 97% consensus view among climate-change scientists is willful ignorance, usually along partisan lines.
Further, unless you're a climate-change scientist, holding anything other than the 97% consensus view among climate-change scientists is willful ignorance, usually along partisan lines.
Yes, absolutely.
This would only allow them to win more elections and retain power for longer. Instead include them in discussions; try to socialize them. Don't talk down to them as they will move away from the discussion and purposefully remain ignorant and vote on such feelings of wrong and vengeance that emerges from ridiculing them. Have we learned nothing from Trump's victory? If so, get ready for two terms.
I'm not American; I have been embittered by the influence the USA has on our world and the relative lack of agency in influencing American actions that the rest of the world exhibits.
I'm ready for another two terms; from the outside looking in I expected continuance of the bombs dropping, the climate talks to continue to end in toothless agreements, the off-shoring of abysmal labour conditions to continue unabated, and so forth, regardless of whether your executive wore red or blue.
Please give me reason for hope, because we need it.
I'm ready for another two terms; from the outside looking in I expected continuance of the bombs dropping, the climate talks to continue to end in toothless agreements, the off-shoring of abysmal labour conditions to continue unabated, and so forth, regardless of whether your executive wore red or blue.
Please give me reason for hope, because we need it.
I too would suspect Bernie Sanders would have had some military events. I'm not saying either side is perfect. I am saying that shouting down at one group is not going to solve the problem. Especially if half the nation doesn't believe in climate change and typically more apt to vote than their liberal counterparts.
At some point, they need to be cut out of the discussion which is why I support taking private initiatives to stave off the worse of AGW without their support. So if it means they get the White House, they can have it. I'd rather have a sustainable ecosystem and set of permanent and private institutions that supplant theirs to maintain that ecosystem. When a significant portion of private power isn't bending a knee to the old order that folks like Stephen Bannon (and to some extent Hillary Clinton) continue to worship then maybe we'll become a more mature civilization in which large scale issues like AGW aren't held hostage by the posturings of politicians.
> This would only allow them to win more elections and retain power for longer. Instead include them in discussions; try to socialize them. Don't talk down to them as they will move away from the discussion and purposefully remain ignorant and vote on such feelings of wrong and vengeance that emerges from ridiculing them. Have we learned nothing from Trump's victory? If so, get ready for two terms.
The problem isn't trying to socialize them.
Their beliefs are a matter of faith and as such is not something they are willing to seriously question without help. You simply cannot "socialize" this problem away. The reality is, these are people who genuinely caught up in a web of charismatic con artists and unfortunately we reality is we will not be more effective than professionals. I have friends who I interact with daily who support Trump and socializing with them it has become clear they take dogma over facts. And I don't mean things that are heavily politicized like Climate Change. I mean, literally, year old events that have dozens of news articles (including multiple right-wing sources) they choose to disbelieve over their chosen charismatic leader on YouTube and Right Wing Radio.
This isn't something you can fix with socialization. This is a willing blindness of cult followers who have been decieved.
https://cultnews.com/2015/01/how-do-you-deprogram-a-scientol...
> Deprogramming a current member of Scientology would depend upon the concern and support of family and friends.
> a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
> a process [Lifton calls] coercive persuasion or thought reform;
> economic exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.
1) They felt vulnerable and they were losing ground in what they believe is a religious war on "their" belief system by Cultural Marxists / PC / Liberal culture. They feel that old institutions that they value have been weakened or destroyed outright. (i.e. Marriage) They rely on charismatic leaders to focus their worship. (i.e. Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Milo)
2) The "cult" has created a filter bubble in which cult members discuss things among themselves and assume all outside influences are heretics acting in bad faith to lure them away from the light. (i.e. They attack credentialed experts while holding up small minority opinions that are not the views of almost all experts in that field of study) People who act against this are ostracized by the party, called cucks, RINOs, etc. (i.e. Right wing talk radio, Alex Jones, Blogspam, Fox News Opinion Shows)
3) The "cult" acts against the economic best interests of the majority of its members and instead focus on servicing the needs of its ruling coterie of donors. (i.e. It focuses on servicing the needs of the wealthy donors and their beliefs.)
The problem isn't trying to socialize them.
Their beliefs are a matter of faith and as such is not something they are willing to seriously question without help. You simply cannot "socialize" this problem away. The reality is, these are people who genuinely caught up in a web of charismatic con artists and unfortunately we reality is we will not be more effective than professionals. I have friends who I interact with daily who support Trump and socializing with them it has become clear they take dogma over facts. And I don't mean things that are heavily politicized like Climate Change. I mean, literally, year old events that have dozens of news articles (including multiple right-wing sources) they choose to disbelieve over their chosen charismatic leader on YouTube and Right Wing Radio.
This isn't something you can fix with socialization. This is a willing blindness of cult followers who have been decieved.
https://cultnews.com/2015/01/how-do-you-deprogram-a-scientol...
> Deprogramming a current member of Scientology would depend upon the concern and support of family and friends.
> a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;
> a process [Lifton calls] coercive persuasion or thought reform;
> economic exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.
1) They felt vulnerable and they were losing ground in what they believe is a religious war on "their" belief system by Cultural Marxists / PC / Liberal culture. They feel that old institutions that they value have been weakened or destroyed outright. (i.e. Marriage) They rely on charismatic leaders to focus their worship. (i.e. Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Milo)
2) The "cult" has created a filter bubble in which cult members discuss things among themselves and assume all outside influences are heretics acting in bad faith to lure them away from the light. (i.e. They attack credentialed experts while holding up small minority opinions that are not the views of almost all experts in that field of study) People who act against this are ostracized by the party, called cucks, RINOs, etc. (i.e. Right wing talk radio, Alex Jones, Blogspam, Fox News Opinion Shows)
3) The "cult" acts against the economic best interests of the majority of its members and instead focus on servicing the needs of its ruling coterie of donors. (i.e. It focuses on servicing the needs of the wealthy donors and their beliefs.)
I never said it would be easy. All I'm saying is to shout them down and ridicule them is going to make the problem worse. Socializing is a good first time. Keep talking to them. Try not to lose your cool. It's hard.. it's really hard. I know people who are Trump fans and are caught up in one aspect that they like about him. Be it ant-immigration or whatever. I do my best to make them think I'm actively accepting their views.. then I do my best to talk about some stuff here and there..if I get them to acknowledge one flaw in their thinking then I see that as a positive. Its going to take years..decades and luck.
> I never said it would be easy. All I'm saying is to shout them down and ridicule them is going to make the problem worse. Socializing is a good first time. Keep talking to them. Try not to lose your cool. It's hard.. it's really hard. I know people who are Trump fans and are caught up in one aspect that they like about him. Be it ant-immigration or whatever. I do my best to make them think I'm actively accepting their views.. then I do my best to talk about some stuff here and there..if I get them to acknowledge one flaw in their thinking then I see that as a positive. Its going to take years..decades and luck.
Socializing and normalizing people who claim people never shot BLM protesters, Mosques don't get burned down, and Sandy Hook never happened is the opposite of what you should do.
I'm sorry, but normalizing that behavior is not a viable solution.
Socializing and normalizing people who claim people never shot BLM protesters, Mosques don't get burned down, and Sandy Hook never happened is the opposite of what you should do.
I'm sorry, but normalizing that behavior is not a viable solution.
It's about numbers. As sien noted earlier "So about 50% of US citizens you would treat like holocaust deniers/flat-earthers?
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climat.... "
If the numbers were different we could marginalize these people. But the numbers aren't different and it doesn't help that generally speaking liberals tend not to vote in off elections. So the problem is even worse. Marginalizing will blow back.
If the numbers were different we could marginalize these people. But the numbers aren't different and it doesn't help that generally speaking liberals tend not to vote in off elections. So the problem is even worse. Marginalizing will blow back.
> It's about numbers. As sien noted earlier "So about 50% of US citizens you would treat like holocaust deniers/flat-earthers? http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climat.... "
That makes it clear you don't understand the problem.
This isn't about scientific consensus (which they can deploy reasonable sounding experts to "debunk") but literal fact denial of events (such as shootings and arrest records) that happened in the previous 1-5 years.
Once a group of people start arguing that events that occurred a few months or a year ago simply _did not happen_ because it is wrongthink it is no longer a political animal but a cult. It is at that point you can't "socialize" those people and you need to seek alternatives.
That makes it clear you don't understand the problem.
This isn't about scientific consensus (which they can deploy reasonable sounding experts to "debunk") but literal fact denial of events (such as shootings and arrest records) that happened in the previous 1-5 years.
Once a group of people start arguing that events that occurred a few months or a year ago simply _did not happen_ because it is wrongthink it is no longer a political animal but a cult. It is at that point you can't "socialize" those people and you need to seek alternatives.
[deleted]
Are you listening to yourself?
> I mean, literally, year old events that have dozens of news articles (including multiple right-wing sources) they choose to disbelieve over their chosen charismatic leader on YouTube and Right Wing Radio.
Please explain to me why people are denying Sandy Hook was a real event?
They also deny things like this happen:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/11/the-3-a...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/760250/Texas-mosque-burn...
Despite the fact I can link them to articles.
Please explain to me how that isn't cult thinking and fundamental denial of reality?
Please explain to me why people are denying Sandy Hook was a real event?
They also deny things like this happen:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/11/the-3-a...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/760250/Texas-mosque-burn...
Despite the fact I can link them to articles.
Please explain to me how that isn't cult thinking and fundamental denial of reality?
Because some people are ignorant and paranoid? I'm fairly sure those are qualities that span all walks of life. You're arguing against straw men, here, and while it's fun to destroy straw men at some point you need to move away from the fringes and start to tackle arguments that have some actual substance.
You are aware these include people advising the President, such as Bannon, correct?
This isn't some lunatic fringe at this point but includes people the President of the United States either takes advice from or treats as friends (i.e. Alex Jones).
This isn't some lunatic fringe at this point but includes people the President of the United States either takes advice from or treats as friends (i.e. Alex Jones).
Geo-engineering is a precarious idea. It requires global collaboration, and investment of huge resources. As the climate changes, and life becomes more difficult, the likelihood of global collaboration and large investment arguably decreases rather than the other way round.
Ideally, we need a climate change solution that can be enacted in a decentralised fashion by large numbers of motivated people without much need for government intervention.
Ideally, we need a climate change solution that can be enacted in a decentralised fashion by large numbers of motivated people without much need for government intervention.
>Geo-engineering is a precarious idea. It requires global collaboration, and investment of huge resources.
You've more or less just described global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. If and when those efforts fail, Geo-engineering might turn out to provide a cheaper and more effective partial solution.
You've more or less just described global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. If and when those efforts fail, Geo-engineering might turn out to provide a cheaper and more effective partial solution.
The common objection I've heard to geo-engineering projects is that they are incredibly difficult to reverse should the need present itself due to detrimental effects discovered part-way along. Does this objection still apply to the current popular proposals?
I recall a proposal to put sulfate particles (I think!) in the upper atmosphere, sort of like what happens with a big volcano, to try cooling things off. The downside is you have to do it constantly, the upside is that if you don't, it fades relatively quickly. So we could try it out on a pretty large scale and stop if we don't like where things are going.
But that's from memory, and I could be recalling the details wrong.
But that's from memory, and I could be recalling the details wrong.
This is probably what we will end up doing because it is the only one that is really viable without insane energy/time requirements. Everything else proposed would require an engineering project many many orders of magnitude greater than anything humans have done before.
This is why I love HN. So much of global warming discussion is about reducing our current effects on the environment. If we can geo-engineer effectively and safely it won't matter.
I fear humanity may be in a race condition between our ability to engineer solutions and the problems that come with scaling our population.
I fear humanity may be in a race condition between our ability to engineer solutions and the problems that come with scaling our population.
> If we can geo-engineer effectively and safely it won't matter.
That's a big if. The global climate is an extremely chaotic and complex system; ur ability to accurately model it is still extremely nascent. (Scientifically, understanding the global climate seems at least as hard as deciphering the architecture of the human genome, say.) If you are at all skeptical of our ability to master geoengineering in time for it to matter -- I'm talking a few decades here -- then it behooves you to opt for conservation instead. Literally the only system that we know for a fact is sustainable is the one that existed before industrialization.
That's a big if. The global climate is an extremely chaotic and complex system; ur ability to accurately model it is still extremely nascent. (Scientifically, understanding the global climate seems at least as hard as deciphering the architecture of the human genome, say.) If you are at all skeptical of our ability to master geoengineering in time for it to matter -- I'm talking a few decades here -- then it behooves you to opt for conservation instead. Literally the only system that we know for a fact is sustainable is the one that existed before industrialization.
How well would geoengineering work, considering the acididation of the oceans? I haven't seen any proposals to handle that, yet it seems like a fairly major consequence all on its own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtQxF_3BSxQ#t=567
This is the only proposal I've seen regarding ocean acidification.
In brief, we need massive amounts of lime to dump into the ocean as an artificial carbon cycle. The problem is how to get lime? If we have massive amounts of clean power, something similar to the cement process (CaCO3 -> CaO) is possible because limestone is cheap.
The problem is the energy requirements are insane. One of the estimations in the talk that remediates only 10% of our yearly CO2 emissions requires 700 TWh (2.52E18 J). Unless we start building \several hundred new GW-scale nuclear[1] power plants (and started a decade ago), I doubt we will be able to do much to address ocean acidification.
[1] I know solar has improved a lot recently. Unless it's possible to generate >1TW of continuous power (24x7), nuclear is probably the only option.
This is the only proposal I've seen regarding ocean acidification.
In brief, we need massive amounts of lime to dump into the ocean as an artificial carbon cycle. The problem is how to get lime? If we have massive amounts of clean power, something similar to the cement process (CaCO3 -> CaO) is possible because limestone is cheap.
The problem is the energy requirements are insane. One of the estimations in the talk that remediates only 10% of our yearly CO2 emissions requires 700 TWh (2.52E18 J). Unless we start building \several hundred new GW-scale nuclear[1] power plants (and started a decade ago), I doubt we will be able to do much to address ocean acidification.
[1] I know solar has improved a lot recently. Unless it's possible to generate >1TW of continuous power (24x7), nuclear is probably the only option.
If we have massive amounts of clean power a lot of the problem goes away anyway. It's not worth taking any proposal that uses vast amounts of electricity seriously, since it's the generation of vast amounts of electricity that causes the problem in the first place.
The oceans are really, really, unbelievably massive. A molecule of water at the bottom of the Pacific takes a few thousand years to ride the currents from one side to the other and then the coastal upwelling to the surface.
We're only really acidifying the very top layer, unfortunately that's where a huge fraction of the stuff that matters is.
Artificial upwelling is a somewhat promising geo-engineering tech to reduce acidification and increase primary production (and thereby carbon capture). The idea is to somehow bring deep sea water up to the surface. Early attempts used long tubes with one way valves that were lifted up and down by wave energy. New more promising techniques use wave energy to compress air, pump the air down deep and then bubble it (and the surrounding water) up from a grid of pipes.
We're only really acidifying the very top layer, unfortunately that's where a huge fraction of the stuff that matters is.
Artificial upwelling is a somewhat promising geo-engineering tech to reduce acidification and increase primary production (and thereby carbon capture). The idea is to somehow bring deep sea water up to the surface. Early attempts used long tubes with one way valves that were lifted up and down by wave energy. New more promising techniques use wave energy to compress air, pump the air down deep and then bubble it (and the surrounding water) up from a grid of pipes.
I am sure it's possible to engineer particles as a space pollutant to shield earth from some unwanted wavelength but allow the wanted ones.
It's also possible to reduce the use of carbon based fuels. We know how to do that.
Currently to do it properly it's by killing poor people.
I don't think so, our CO2 emissions aren't coming from the poor.
Solar, wind and nuclear kill poor people?
Telling poor people that the only power they are allowed to have is too expensive for them to afford does result in their having shorter lifespans. Energy is one of the keys to modernity; you can't power an MRI machine with UN-subsidized corn.
If you provide them with solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, or possibly fusion power at costs lower than or equal to organic fuels, they will not suffer (and might benefit).
If you provide them with solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, or possibly fusion power at costs lower than or equal to organic fuels, they will not suffer (and might benefit).
Who is telling poor people that? Nobody. Ever been to Africa? Poor people don't have access to energy not because of environmental regulation, but because they are poor. Coal mining and combustion kill far more poor people than this straw man,
Lack of MRI scanners doesn't shorten life spans significantly, lack of clean water and good nutrition is what's significant.
Clean water and good nutrition come from cheap energy.
The Saudis can go a hell of a lot cheaper for oil.
Unless you're willing to kill people we are going to have a mess to clean up in the future.
Which is ok, because in the future tech will be way more advanced.
The Saudis can go a hell of a lot cheaper for oil.
Unless you're willing to kill people we are going to have a mess to clean up in the future.
Which is ok, because in the future tech will be way more advanced.
I really am not enthusiastic about our ability to technologically address a system as complex and poorly understood as the global climate. Our answer should be what India is doing, planting hundreds of millions more trees (restoring the american chestnut with the blight resistant variety is a start), reforming agriculture based on long-term perennial/silvopasture models and soil carbon capture, reducing the travel and industrial footprints of modern life, etc. These are all things that make more sense than geoengineering both in terms of their ease of accomplishment and the likelihood of unforeseen consequences they might produce. They also happen to be really good things for health and happiness.
Yet another proof that we're all in the same boat on this one.
The craters in Siberia:
- http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170223-in-siberia-there-is-...
- https://www.google.com/maps/place/Batagaika+Crater/@67.58752...
The craters in Siberia:
- http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170223-in-siberia-there-is-...
- https://www.google.com/maps/place/Batagaika+Crater/@67.58752...
I remember reading (probably about 2 decades ago) that if we were to loose the permafrost the resulting release of CO2 would lead to runaway warming.
I haven't read that concern recently, so I'm hopeful that scientists no longer feel that way, but it is alarming to see this day has come.
I haven't read that concern recently, so I'm hopeful that scientists no longer feel that way, but it is alarming to see this day has come.
Last I heard, scientists still feel that way, but they've gotten burned-out on trying to explain to the public exactly how doomed we actually are.
Yeah, the common sentiment is 'the best time to take action was 40 years ago. The absolute limit was 20 years ago. There's no stopping it now, even if we reduce our emissions to zero. The latent emissions in the atmosphere will already bone us. I'm glad I live in the Netherlands. We're a very rich country, and we have been battling water for more than a thousand years as a people. Places like Bangladesh will be completely destroyed..
> the common sentiment is 'the best time to take action was 40 years ago. The absolute limit was 20 years ago. There's no stopping it now
My impression is that this is the latest fallback position intended to stop/delay us from acting (I don't know that the parent commenter intends it that way; this isn't a criticism of them). In rough order:
1) There is no global warming
2) There is global warming, but it's not caused by humans
3) It's caused by humans but there is nothing we can do about it.
4) We can do something about it, but it's too expensive to be worthwhile.
5) It's cost-effective (because the cost of doing nothing is so high), but it's too late to act.
6) ? Any predictions for the next fallback argument?
My impression is that this is the latest fallback position intended to stop/delay us from acting (I don't know that the parent commenter intends it that way; this isn't a criticism of them). In rough order:
1) There is no global warming
2) There is global warming, but it's not caused by humans
3) It's caused by humans but there is nothing we can do about it.
4) We can do something about it, but it's too expensive to be worthwhile.
5) It's cost-effective (because the cost of doing nothing is so high), but it's too late to act.
6) ? Any predictions for the next fallback argument?
6) It's all part of God's plan
That sounds like a cheap shot but the sad reality is that there are quite a few people who seriously believe that this is part of the rapture/apocalypse/tribulation revealed in Bible prophecy and that attempts to prevent or even mitigate against it are satanic.
Of course that's completely bonkers but we have to remember that there's a significant contingent invested in the idea that the bible is literally true and the realities of modern life are essentially illusions designed to test people's faith. I don't know exactly how many people believe this, but I'd bet on about 5-15 million people in the USA.
That sounds like a cheap shot but the sad reality is that there are quite a few people who seriously believe that this is part of the rapture/apocalypse/tribulation revealed in Bible prophecy and that attempts to prevent or even mitigate against it are satanic.
Of course that's completely bonkers but we have to remember that there's a significant contingent invested in the idea that the bible is literally true and the realities of modern life are essentially illusions designed to test people's faith. I don't know exactly how many people believe this, but I'd bet on about 5-15 million people in the USA.
If anyone has people like this in your life, the Bible gives you a little ammo for changing their mind. First of all, mankind was given stewardship over the Earth. God expects people to not trash the place.
Secondly, Jesus was quite emphatic that no one would know the day & time of his return. He did say there would be warning signs, but also said it would still be a surprise. If someone wants to destroy the world in order to push for the Second Coming, then they're on the verge of being a false prophet as described by Christ. Not to mention: why take the risk when this might not be the time of his return?
I'm personally not a believer now, but I was raised in a very conservative Christian family. These arguments sometimes have an effect on my friends and family still in the church.
Secondly, Jesus was quite emphatic that no one would know the day & time of his return. He did say there would be warning signs, but also said it would still be a surprise. If someone wants to destroy the world in order to push for the Second Coming, then they're on the verge of being a false prophet as described by Christ. Not to mention: why take the risk when this might not be the time of his return?
I'm personally not a believer now, but I was raised in a very conservative Christian family. These arguments sometimes have an effect on my friends and family still in the church.
> If anyone has people like this in your life, the Bible gives you a little ammo for changing their mind. First of all, mankind was given stewardship over the Earth. God expects people to not trash the place.
People who believe such things generally justify them by that very stewardship clause. According to that take, God gave the planet to humans, so however they use it is fine and accounted for. So either AGW simply isn't real, or if it is, God will take care of it.
People who believe such things generally justify them by that very stewardship clause. According to that take, God gave the planet to humans, so however they use it is fine and accounted for. So either AGW simply isn't real, or if it is, God will take care of it.
7) Fake news. NOAA was faking the data, and things are fixed now. New data is great, but we don't release it.
I'm curious what you expect people to do and what you're doing yourself.
I worry about climate change and so do most of my friends but I see ZERO action on any of our parts. Example: Nearly all my friends FLEW to GDC this week, many of them that's a HUGE amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere just so we can have fun, network and party. Then we go to BBQ and hamburger restaurants and eat lots of beef which we're told we shouldn't because it's the biggest resource user for the smallest amount of food. Many of them upgrade their $!000 phone every year as well as several other electronic gadgets creating lots of electronic waste.
My point is, even the majority of "believers" won't change their behavior. At most if you're lucky they might start carrying their own bag to the grocery store yet still probably have 15+ pairs of shoes for "fashion" (yet another industry people claim is bad for the environment"
If the believers won't change their behavior what chance is there the non-believers will do anything?
If the only solution is "vote for a world government to geo-engineer the planet" well that's never going to happen.
Is the only rational thing to do, figure out where the new beachfronts will be and start buying property while it's cheap (like Lex Luthor from the first Superman movie)
I worry about climate change and so do most of my friends but I see ZERO action on any of our parts. Example: Nearly all my friends FLEW to GDC this week, many of them that's a HUGE amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere just so we can have fun, network and party. Then we go to BBQ and hamburger restaurants and eat lots of beef which we're told we shouldn't because it's the biggest resource user for the smallest amount of food. Many of them upgrade their $!000 phone every year as well as several other electronic gadgets creating lots of electronic waste.
My point is, even the majority of "believers" won't change their behavior. At most if you're lucky they might start carrying their own bag to the grocery store yet still probably have 15+ pairs of shoes for "fashion" (yet another industry people claim is bad for the environment"
If the believers won't change their behavior what chance is there the non-believers will do anything?
If the only solution is "vote for a world government to geo-engineer the planet" well that's never going to happen.
Is the only rational thing to do, figure out where the new beachfronts will be and start buying property while it's cheap (like Lex Luthor from the first Superman movie)
I've become vegetarian, and have never owned a car. I've still got my 8 year old Nokia instead of buying the latest iPhone. My shoes are 10 years old (but well maintained and high quality, so you wouldn't be able to tell, except that they are not the latest fashion).
It's your decision to keep ignoring the problem. Nobody else taking action does not absolve you from your responsibility.
As a bonus, scaling down your consumption means your money goes much further. Early retirement (think thirties), is not impossible. If you're interested in these ideas, I've enjoyed reading [1].
[1] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/
It's your decision to keep ignoring the problem. Nobody else taking action does not absolve you from your responsibility.
As a bonus, scaling down your consumption means your money goes much further. Early retirement (think thirties), is not impossible. If you're interested in these ideas, I've enjoyed reading [1].
[1] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/
After the fact that I don't like children, reducing my contribution to climate change is the #2 reason I chose not to have children.
Call your elected representative; do it now. The answer is through government.
If we paid the true cost of carbon, probably we'd fly less, fuel would be re-engineered, and other forms of transport would be developed and expanded.
If we paid the true cost of carbon, probably we'd fly less, fuel would be re-engineered, and other forms of transport would be developed and expanded.
I bike to work and I'm a vegetarian. Many of my friends are similarly inclined.
You could probably get them to buy carbon credits. It'll be slightly less bad.
I did stop eating beef but my tech company cafeteria seems to be huge fans of it and will not stop giving it to us.
I did stop eating beef but my tech company cafeteria seems to be huge fans of it and will not stop giving it to us.
It just like "A Narcicist's Prayer":
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did...
You deserved it.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did...
You deserved it.
You forgot the people who are global warming enthusiasts. They say things like, "CO2 is plant food, and we'll have a boom of farming productivity."
I'm sure I read that plant coverage of the earth has increased by 14% since we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Unfortunately the consensus seemed to be we are at or near the peak of this effect.
6) We can still act but you don't want to give the power to do it.
7) You gave the power, but to the wrong people.
8) The people in power are going to survive but we aren't.
7) You gave the power, but to the wrong people.
8) The people in power are going to survive but we aren't.
My prediction is "we're encouraging the development of new waterfront properties".
6 is GOTO 1.
The mouse wheel of denial.
The mouse wheel of denial.
I joke this is the real reason Elon Musk is digging tunnels and preparing to live in a Mars-like environment...
Why do you think that this is a joke?
Elon has stated in all seriousness that he personally puts global warming at above a 1% chance of being a species-threatening event for us, and that we need to become a multi-planetary species to reduce the odds of extinction.
He doesn't think that wiping out our species is a likely or even very probable. Just high enough that there is no better way that he can spend his time than trying to address and mitigate the problem.
Elon has stated in all seriousness that he personally puts global warming at above a 1% chance of being a species-threatening event for us, and that we need to become a multi-planetary species to reduce the odds of extinction.
He doesn't think that wiping out our species is a likely or even very probable. Just high enough that there is no better way that he can spend his time than trying to address and mitigate the problem.
The thing is, even Earth at its worst is still by far the most habitable planet in the system.
The biggest issue we have with climate change is that we and the biosphere are set up for it to be this way, and adaption is slow. We might have to move many cities and the agriculture, and somehow manage with a biosphere that takes many generations to adapt.
The biggest issue we have with climate change is that we and the biosphere are set up for it to be this way, and adaption is slow. We might have to move many cities and the agriculture, and somehow manage with a biosphere that takes many generations to adapt.
The problem comes if, for example, ocean acidification causes a run-away chemical reaction that makes agriculture fail on a large scale, making civilization collapse.
All such possibilities are low. But they aren't 0. Elon's personal judgement is that combined they exceed 1%.
All such possibilities are low. But they aren't 0. Elon's personal judgement is that combined they exceed 1%.
Because I don't really want to believe it's going to get that bad - I certainly won't be getting a place in the vaults.
Although I'm not Dutch I profess a lot of affection to the Netherlands and I lived there for a bunch of years.
Having said that, it is IMHO possibly the worse place to be in case of a massive increase in the sea level. My house in Den Haag is 10ft below the sea level, maybe 5 miles away from the sea.
That's scary no matter how you put it, despite the best engineering effort from my friends at Rijkswaterstaat.
Having said that, it is IMHO possibly the worse place to be in case of a massive increase in the sea level. My house in Den Haag is 10ft below the sea level, maybe 5 miles away from the sea.
That's scary no matter how you put it, despite the best engineering effort from my friends at Rijkswaterstaat.
So I am Dutch and currently living in the Netherlands. I think it's something the Netherlands will definitely survive. As a general rule of thumb, a country can spend 50% of GDP for a few years - and end up OK afterwards - on something that's threatening the survival of the nation. The US spent 40% of GDP on WWII, for example. The Dutch GDP is almost a trillion dollars. I think that half a trillion dollars is enough to protect a small country that a) already has good water infrastructure, b) is only 42,000 km2 (25% or so of which is already water), and c) a lot of the threatened area is not terribly densely populated.
In contrast, Bangladesh's land area is ~150,000 km2 vs ~30,000 km2 for the Netherlands (figures off the top of my head.) Bangladesh's population is concentrated in places with extraordinarily bad water infrastructure and in the parts of the country most at risk for flooding. Their population is literally ten times larger... and despite having a 'low' growth rate it is growing at about two million additional people PER YEAR. Bangladesh's total GDP is also less than a quarter of a trillion dollars. To add to that, the Bangladeshi government is undoubtedly less skilled at leading massive public works and infrastructure projects to save 160,000,000 people (most of which live in poverty) from having their home flooded.
Put it this way, you have two choices. Choice A: you live in one of the wealthiest countries on earth, world renowned for its water management, and you're packed next to a lot of other wealthy people in a union with a lot of other wealthy countries. Your government says it will spend thirty thousand dollars per year - for every man, woman, child, baby, grandmother, you name it - to save your ass from global warming, and they have a history of winning against the water. Even if your country completely ceases to exist, you are bordered by two very wealthy countries where all your citizens have permission to live and work permanently, with no visas or administrative mess. These countries are big enough, and have faced enough of a population decline, that they'd each survive taking in 8 million or so highly educated, wealthy, English-speaking people with extremely similar culture and beliefs. Hell, we're so closely integrated with Belgium that we just peacefully swapped land! [0]
Or, you live in one of the poorest countries on earth, which has semi-friendly relations with a few other countries scattered around the globe. Your government says it will spend $400 - less than the price of a new smartphone - to try to save you from having your home wiped out by rising sea levels. This government's history of water management reads like a bad joke: their latest lauded efforts are to try to get water from a hundred and sixty kilometers away, and forty percent of the capital's population live in slums that regularly flood with sewage. The neighboring countries are all dealing with population problems of their own: they're also wealthier, and at least somewhat hesitant to take in one hundred and sixty million impoverished people.
I know personally I'm a hell of a lot more scared for Bangladesh.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/world/europe/belgium-neth...
In contrast, Bangladesh's land area is ~150,000 km2 vs ~30,000 km2 for the Netherlands (figures off the top of my head.) Bangladesh's population is concentrated in places with extraordinarily bad water infrastructure and in the parts of the country most at risk for flooding. Their population is literally ten times larger... and despite having a 'low' growth rate it is growing at about two million additional people PER YEAR. Bangladesh's total GDP is also less than a quarter of a trillion dollars. To add to that, the Bangladeshi government is undoubtedly less skilled at leading massive public works and infrastructure projects to save 160,000,000 people (most of which live in poverty) from having their home flooded.
Put it this way, you have two choices. Choice A: you live in one of the wealthiest countries on earth, world renowned for its water management, and you're packed next to a lot of other wealthy people in a union with a lot of other wealthy countries. Your government says it will spend thirty thousand dollars per year - for every man, woman, child, baby, grandmother, you name it - to save your ass from global warming, and they have a history of winning against the water. Even if your country completely ceases to exist, you are bordered by two very wealthy countries where all your citizens have permission to live and work permanently, with no visas or administrative mess. These countries are big enough, and have faced enough of a population decline, that they'd each survive taking in 8 million or so highly educated, wealthy, English-speaking people with extremely similar culture and beliefs. Hell, we're so closely integrated with Belgium that we just peacefully swapped land! [0]
Or, you live in one of the poorest countries on earth, which has semi-friendly relations with a few other countries scattered around the globe. Your government says it will spend $400 - less than the price of a new smartphone - to try to save you from having your home wiped out by rising sea levels. This government's history of water management reads like a bad joke: their latest lauded efforts are to try to get water from a hundred and sixty kilometers away, and forty percent of the capital's population live in slums that regularly flood with sewage. The neighboring countries are all dealing with population problems of their own: they're also wealthier, and at least somewhat hesitant to take in one hundred and sixty million impoverished people.
I know personally I'm a hell of a lot more scared for Bangladesh.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/world/europe/belgium-neth...
Yes, Bagladesh is screwed, but if that [Clathrate gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis) goes off, we're looking at ~60m of sea level rise. The Low Countries aren't going to do very well at that point, either.
So even if 60m of sea level rise happened - and most of the Netherlands could not be saved - I still think some portions would be OK. Amersfoort, Arnhem, Apeldoorn, Nijmegen and Enschede (as well of Maastricht of course) would be saveable with creative water engineering. Combined, you could probably fit several million people there, easily enough to maintain the Netherlands as its own country (again, this is apocalypse-level planning here.)
Additionally, the rest of the displaced millions are mostly very highly educated, wealthy, English-speaking people who are allowed to live and work anywhere in the EU. Compare this to Bangladesh.
Additionally, the rest of the displaced millions are mostly very highly educated, wealthy, English-speaking people who are allowed to live and work anywhere in the EU. Compare this to Bangladesh.
> I'm glad I live in the Netherlands.
It would be a damn sight better to be living in Switzerland, NL will be sea again once that kicks off.
Not much to do against that kind of rise in water levels.
It would be a damn sight better to be living in Switzerland, NL will be sea again once that kicks off.
Not much to do against that kind of rise in water levels.
Ok, then is there any proposed plan to remove the excess CO2 from the air and oceans?
Accelerated silicate weathering seems like the best bet. Naturally occurring silicate compounds of magnesium and calcium react with ambient CO2 in the presence of water to form stable carbonates and silicon dioxide:
CaSiO3 + CO2 -> CaCaO3 + SiO2
The thermodynamics are much more favorable than "combustion-in-reverse" (trying to reform hydrocarbons from CO2). The products are stable and the process can deal with point CO2 sources, distributed sources, atmospheric CO2, and ocean acidification -- the whole shebang.
But the natural kinetics of silicate weathering are very slow. Kinetics can be improved by orders of magnitude if you grind the silicate minerals to dust; it's a surface area limited reaction. Kinetics get better yet if you apply the mafic rock dust to e.g. acid sulfate soils used for agriculture in the tropics. Those soils already need a pH boost to avoid crop stunting by soluble aluminum. Doing the adjustment with silicates instead of limestone means a two-for-one benefit (crop productivity plus drawing down CO2). But I think that to see widespread adoption there will have to be some targeted donor aid to poorer countries; ground limestone is cheaper than ground silicates if you don't care about CO2 abatement, and the rich world's farmers don't have a lot of acid sulfate soils in need of treatment within their home countries.
CaSiO3 + CO2 -> CaCaO3 + SiO2
The thermodynamics are much more favorable than "combustion-in-reverse" (trying to reform hydrocarbons from CO2). The products are stable and the process can deal with point CO2 sources, distributed sources, atmospheric CO2, and ocean acidification -- the whole shebang.
But the natural kinetics of silicate weathering are very slow. Kinetics can be improved by orders of magnitude if you grind the silicate minerals to dust; it's a surface area limited reaction. Kinetics get better yet if you apply the mafic rock dust to e.g. acid sulfate soils used for agriculture in the tropics. Those soils already need a pH boost to avoid crop stunting by soluble aluminum. Doing the adjustment with silicates instead of limestone means a two-for-one benefit (crop productivity plus drawing down CO2). But I think that to see widespread adoption there will have to be some targeted donor aid to poorer countries; ground limestone is cheaper than ground silicates if you don't care about CO2 abatement, and the rich world's farmers don't have a lot of acid sulfate soils in need of treatment within their home countries.
That sounds really interesting. If a government said "yep, we are doing that" what is the mechanism they would use?
I'm not an expert, but here are some ideas:
0) Donor government identifies a country where acid soils are already cultivated for agriculture. The recipient country should also be reasonably stable so you don't have to plan around armed conflict. Palm oil production in Malaysia looks like a good candidate. It's important to get buy-in from the (potential) recipient country's government too.
1) Within the chosen country, identify a region that has a lot of acid soil cultivation and that has easily accessible deposits of ultramafic rocks nearby. (Shouldn't be too hard, as such rocks are very common.)
2) Provide electrically powered crushers and/or grinders for size reduction, plus power sources if remote from the grid (ideally solar, maybe diesel generators as are common for mining sites; even if it's fossil powered the net CO2 is deeply negative). There may be some necessary R&D optimizing said crushers for low-maintenance conditions, since ultramafic rocks are among the hardest and toughest.
3) Pay locals to run the crushers and transport discounted-or-free rock dust to farmers in place of limestone. There might be some gaming of the system if e.g. drivers are really just dumping rock dust on the nearest empty land instead of finding farmers to take it, but that's tolerable. The project is already 75% done if you just get the rock crushed to dust in the first place. So key metric is ensuring that the crushers are still operable and are actually being used to crush rocks as intended.
Another idea, after I've written this out: there is less but still some acid soil under cultivation in the richer nations of the world, e.g. parts of Australia. Might want to try it first in the developed world where monitoring, language barriers, and infrastructure are all less challenging.
EDIT: a somewhat less effective but still potentially interesting idea is to put the ground rock in near-shore ocean environments where wave action will help abrade/weather the particles. Probably not as good as acidic warm soil in the tropics, but still a speedup over the natural way.
0) Donor government identifies a country where acid soils are already cultivated for agriculture. The recipient country should also be reasonably stable so you don't have to plan around armed conflict. Palm oil production in Malaysia looks like a good candidate. It's important to get buy-in from the (potential) recipient country's government too.
1) Within the chosen country, identify a region that has a lot of acid soil cultivation and that has easily accessible deposits of ultramafic rocks nearby. (Shouldn't be too hard, as such rocks are very common.)
2) Provide electrically powered crushers and/or grinders for size reduction, plus power sources if remote from the grid (ideally solar, maybe diesel generators as are common for mining sites; even if it's fossil powered the net CO2 is deeply negative). There may be some necessary R&D optimizing said crushers for low-maintenance conditions, since ultramafic rocks are among the hardest and toughest.
3) Pay locals to run the crushers and transport discounted-or-free rock dust to farmers in place of limestone. There might be some gaming of the system if e.g. drivers are really just dumping rock dust on the nearest empty land instead of finding farmers to take it, but that's tolerable. The project is already 75% done if you just get the rock crushed to dust in the first place. So key metric is ensuring that the crushers are still operable and are actually being used to crush rocks as intended.
Another idea, after I've written this out: there is less but still some acid soil under cultivation in the richer nations of the world, e.g. parts of Australia. Might want to try it first in the developed world where monitoring, language barriers, and infrastructure are all less challenging.
EDIT: a somewhat less effective but still potentially interesting idea is to put the ground rock in near-shore ocean environments where wave action will help abrade/weather the particles. Probably not as good as acidic warm soil in the tropics, but still a speedup over the natural way.
I'd love to hear people's proposals for this. There's of course natural methods such as reforestation and soil building, but I have a feeling that we'll want to augment that with more synthetic means.
Carbon chains, or in the simplest case, methane, are expensive to produce, as one might expect. By far it's better to never have burned that fossil fuel than to try to reclaim it from the atmosphere or ocean. Setting a $80/ton CO2 carbon tax (Exxon's internal estimate for new project planning) or even a $40/ton CO2 carbon tax (Shell's internal estimate for new project planning) is an obvious step. When even the fossil fuel companies are using this tax level in their internal estimates, it's just stupid that our government and political leaders aren't pushing for that or double or triple it.
My personal hope is that by 2040 we will have lots of excess electricity from solar and wind because we overprovision them. And we'll overprovision them because they will be the cheapest electricity, and we need enough of them such that at their low point of output they still meet our needs. In that case it seems that we may have cheap intermittent electricity. At that point we can start making hydrogen, then combining it with CO2, to start getting rid of greenhouse gases.
Some people think that we'll be able to take methane (natural gas) and make hydrogen and precipitate out the carbon as graphite. that's probably the easiest form of carbon to dispose of, whereas a liquid like methanol or even diesel is going to pose lots of problems.
It seems that CO2 in the oceans is going to be a bit more easy to remove than atmospheric CO2. So it seems that there are all sorts of chemistries that would be useful for that.
But still, we need a carbon tax to fund such carbon sequestration activities. Without a market mechanism, there's not going to be much investment. We need to both do research, then develop them into large industries really quickly.
Carbon tax, carbon tax, carbon tax. Don't vote for anybody or any party that doesn't advocate for it. This is the biggest single issue for our children and their economy.
Carbon chains, or in the simplest case, methane, are expensive to produce, as one might expect. By far it's better to never have burned that fossil fuel than to try to reclaim it from the atmosphere or ocean. Setting a $80/ton CO2 carbon tax (Exxon's internal estimate for new project planning) or even a $40/ton CO2 carbon tax (Shell's internal estimate for new project planning) is an obvious step. When even the fossil fuel companies are using this tax level in their internal estimates, it's just stupid that our government and political leaders aren't pushing for that or double or triple it.
My personal hope is that by 2040 we will have lots of excess electricity from solar and wind because we overprovision them. And we'll overprovision them because they will be the cheapest electricity, and we need enough of them such that at their low point of output they still meet our needs. In that case it seems that we may have cheap intermittent electricity. At that point we can start making hydrogen, then combining it with CO2, to start getting rid of greenhouse gases.
Some people think that we'll be able to take methane (natural gas) and make hydrogen and precipitate out the carbon as graphite. that's probably the easiest form of carbon to dispose of, whereas a liquid like methanol or even diesel is going to pose lots of problems.
It seems that CO2 in the oceans is going to be a bit more easy to remove than atmospheric CO2. So it seems that there are all sorts of chemistries that would be useful for that.
But still, we need a carbon tax to fund such carbon sequestration activities. Without a market mechanism, there's not going to be much investment. We need to both do research, then develop them into large industries really quickly.
Carbon tax, carbon tax, carbon tax. Don't vote for anybody or any party that doesn't advocate for it. This is the biggest single issue for our children and their economy.
If we are already past the point where conservation will help, a carbon tax seems like closing the barn doors after all the cows escaped. the market is already going down the alternate fuel route.
What I want to know is there any concrete plan to build something that will remove excess CO2 from the air and ocean that can be built by the government. Build this is going to go over a whole lot better than tax this.
What I want to know is there any concrete plan to build something that will remove excess CO2 from the air and ocean that can be built by the government. Build this is going to go over a whole lot better than tax this.
I think that carbon tax pays for the building of the thing?
I don't think a carbon tax is ever going to be politically viable.
On the off chance that somebody sees this 8 days later, Shell may disagree here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/shell-oil-warn-foss...
Of course, they are heavier into natural gas than their fossil fuel competitors, so a carbon tax impacts them the least, therefore giving them a competitive advantage.
The only reason it's not politically viable is because a minority of Americans have forced one political party to say so. That can change quickly. They think that they're protecting "their side" but even "their side" disagrees with them.
There's no excuse, absolutely no excuse, to be against a carbon tax. It's the most libertarian, market friendly way to deal with carbon emissions.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/shell-oil-warn-foss...
Of course, they are heavier into natural gas than their fossil fuel competitors, so a carbon tax impacts them the least, therefore giving them a competitive advantage.
The only reason it's not politically viable is because a minority of Americans have forced one political party to say so. That can change quickly. They think that they're protecting "their side" but even "their side" disagrees with them.
There's no excuse, absolutely no excuse, to be against a carbon tax. It's the most libertarian, market friendly way to deal with carbon emissions.
I think it would be if it replaced income tax & corporation tax.
I don't know if you are trolling, but I will bite.
You know the Netherlands will be literally underwater within this century, don't you?
You know the Netherlands will be literally underwater within this century, don't you?
We've been largely winning against the sea since 1500, and that's with windmills and wheelbarrels of mud. Look up the Afsluitdijk. Or the Deltawerken. Our combined 'water defense works' are considered one of the modern wonders of the world. The Dutch will never surrender to the sea. Even if the rest of the globe will experience some catastrophic flood, the Dutch will figure out how to stave it off.
Famous last words!
Actually, much of the Netherlands is already "literally underwater", and most of it would be flooded by storm surges. It's just that there's a highly layered defense of dikes, dams and pumping stations. Next time in Amsterdam, check out the display at city hall.
Since the disastrous 1953 flood, they've installed humongous valves at the mouths of all estuaries (Delta Works). If sea level increases more than a meter or so, they'll need to modify it.
Since the disastrous 1953 flood, they've installed humongous valves at the mouths of all estuaries (Delta Works). If sea level increases more than a meter or so, they'll need to modify it.
Not it won't. Why do you think differently?
As already noted in other sibling comments, the Netherlands is famous for having lots of territory under current sea level. According to Wikipedia, roughly half of its territory is 1 meter above sea level or lower. Two more facts from the same source: it is one of the more densely populated countries in the world, and the second exporter of agricultural products (only behing USA).
On the positive side, they have 500 years of experience building dykes and defending their coast line. Their experience will be invaluable to fight off raise of sea level during the current century, inland and around the world.
On the negative, they have huge liabilities that can be triggered even by temporary floods. Refugee crisises during storms, lost of high value agricultural land due to increased salinity of soil, etc. All this will cut down on their budget to support their current dyke infrastructure, precisely at a time when they should be extending and enhancing it agressively.
Rinse and repeat for 50 years, and you are bonded to see an ever growing number of marginal areas that are deemed not worth salvaging and left to be turned in unproductive swamps. I do not see the impoverished and overpopulated remanant of Netherlands surviving for long afterwards.
Best case scenario I imagine is they will be absorbed by Germany, who may at that time have the economic power to keep the dykes in running order. Or they may try to stick to their own guns, in which case it is hard to tell how much land they will be able to hold dry.
On the positive side, they have 500 years of experience building dykes and defending their coast line. Their experience will be invaluable to fight off raise of sea level during the current century, inland and around the world.
On the negative, they have huge liabilities that can be triggered even by temporary floods. Refugee crisises during storms, lost of high value agricultural land due to increased salinity of soil, etc. All this will cut down on their budget to support their current dyke infrastructure, precisely at a time when they should be extending and enhancing it agressively.
Rinse and repeat for 50 years, and you are bonded to see an ever growing number of marginal areas that are deemed not worth salvaging and left to be turned in unproductive swamps. I do not see the impoverished and overpopulated remanant of Netherlands surviving for long afterwards.
Best case scenario I imagine is they will be absorbed by Germany, who may at that time have the economic power to keep the dykes in running order. Or they may try to stick to their own guns, in which case it is hard to tell how much land they will be able to hold dry.
Yes, we still feel that way. It's not like we can do anything though.
How fast would the runaway happen?
I'm not sure I understand your question correctly. It is not a question of time but of system parameters.
I just dug through the literature to get this right. The only study I found that actually modelled the feedback of the rising temperature due to emitted greenhouse gases (CO2 and CH4 - methane) on the permafrost says that any model they ran with a climate sensitivity above 3°C (how the system reacts to a doubling of CO2 or equivalent in the atmosphere [1]) produced a runaway effect, that is, atmospheric CO2 content keeps rising even if anthropogenic emissions stop in 2013 (which, as you know, they didn't). The current state on climate sensitivity is 3°C +-1.5°C.
They estimated some parameters conservatively too. So it could be worse. Or better - there are still a lot of uncertainties.
- The way carbon is released into the atmosphere can happen in different ways, and that can lead to different ratios of carbon in the air and other reservoirs like water or soil in bound form, as well as different ratios of methane and CO2 (they have vastly different atmospheric lifetimes and warming potential, so this matters).
- The total amount of carbon stored in permafrost soils is unclear. Permafrost can be very thick and deep, and large areas are hard to access. edit: Estimations are that the reservoir holds about twice that of the current atmosphere. Some of that will definitely go into the ocean and biosphere, but it's still a lot.
- Permafrost has a range of interesting behaviour during the freeze-thaw cycle (if you're interested, check it out, the features it produces are really neat). It is unclear how they change with temperature differences, and it influences the melting and release of carbon.
- Other climate-related effects such as flooding, increased vegetation etc have an influence. How much? Hard to say.
- Once the permafrost starts melting, carbon is released with a time delay, which is also not clear.
.. and so on. Non-linear effects, effects highly dependent on topography, micro-climate, vegetation... very hard to model in a consistent way. So.. it might be wrong too. Let's hope so.
The new balanced state will need years to centuries to be reached too, since thawing takes time. There is permafrost beneath the northern oceans. How? It's still there from the last ice age.
A note on time: The numbers I found for increased temperature due to permafrost melting by 2100 are in the 0.1°C-0.7°C range [2]. So we're probably fine. The ones after us.. well. There are some other feedback mechanisms that still require research. It would be great if something there helped us.. or we are all horribly wrong. That would be brilliant.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
[2] http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/0850...
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1573.html
This one is behind a paywall. :(
I just dug through the literature to get this right. The only study I found that actually modelled the feedback of the rising temperature due to emitted greenhouse gases (CO2 and CH4 - methane) on the permafrost says that any model they ran with a climate sensitivity above 3°C (how the system reacts to a doubling of CO2 or equivalent in the atmosphere [1]) produced a runaway effect, that is, atmospheric CO2 content keeps rising even if anthropogenic emissions stop in 2013 (which, as you know, they didn't). The current state on climate sensitivity is 3°C +-1.5°C.
They estimated some parameters conservatively too. So it could be worse. Or better - there are still a lot of uncertainties.
- The way carbon is released into the atmosphere can happen in different ways, and that can lead to different ratios of carbon in the air and other reservoirs like water or soil in bound form, as well as different ratios of methane and CO2 (they have vastly different atmospheric lifetimes and warming potential, so this matters).
- The total amount of carbon stored in permafrost soils is unclear. Permafrost can be very thick and deep, and large areas are hard to access. edit: Estimations are that the reservoir holds about twice that of the current atmosphere. Some of that will definitely go into the ocean and biosphere, but it's still a lot.
- Permafrost has a range of interesting behaviour during the freeze-thaw cycle (if you're interested, check it out, the features it produces are really neat). It is unclear how they change with temperature differences, and it influences the melting and release of carbon.
- Other climate-related effects such as flooding, increased vegetation etc have an influence. How much? Hard to say.
- Once the permafrost starts melting, carbon is released with a time delay, which is also not clear.
.. and so on. Non-linear effects, effects highly dependent on topography, micro-climate, vegetation... very hard to model in a consistent way. So.. it might be wrong too. Let's hope so.
The new balanced state will need years to centuries to be reached too, since thawing takes time. There is permafrost beneath the northern oceans. How? It's still there from the last ice age.
A note on time: The numbers I found for increased temperature due to permafrost melting by 2100 are in the 0.1°C-0.7°C range [2]. So we're probably fine. The ones after us.. well. There are some other feedback mechanisms that still require research. It would be great if something there helped us.. or we are all horribly wrong. That would be brilliant.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
[2] http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/0850...
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1573.html
This one is behind a paywall. :(
How fast is exponentially?
I'd argue that it's happening now. On February 17, it was 81F in my back porch in Albany, NY. That is an all time record.
Right now, at 6PM EST, its 64F. It hasn't been below 20 in a week. Our average high is about 28F. We've had fewer snow events in the last 5 years than we had in any year in the 90s.
The climate has already changed.
Right now, at 6PM EST, its 64F. It hasn't been below 20 in a week. Our average high is about 28F. We've had fewer snow events in the last 5 years than we had in any year in the 90s.
The climate has already changed.
It's been warm here in Michigan also, but there were also record lows just 2 years ago, and while this year as been extraordinary, there are years in the late 1800s with big melt ups and so on.
Which I'm just saying that it is difficult to take a season of weather and be sure it fits into a broader context. I'm arguing against drawing conclusions from short periods of observation.
Which I'm just saying that it is difficult to take a season of weather and be sure it fits into a broader context. I'm arguing against drawing conclusions from short periods of observation.
The parent specifically asked about "the runaway," not merely climate change. The term "runaway" refers to a feedback effect, so that climate change breeds more climate change rather than relying on our carbon emissions to fuel it.
"Now" still seems like a very good answer. I doubt that if we stopped emissions today, we'd see any positive changes for decades, and that's if we're very very lucky.
Yeah, "now" seems a good answer. A couple decades ago, I would have said "no clue, really". But now, it seems pretty clear.
And yes, even without positive feedback, it would take several decades for forcing to relax after carbon emissions ceased. Which is very unlikely.
So I really do think that it's time to consider active mitigation. But I'm not even very optimistic about that, given the likely positive feedbacks. Requisite mitigation requirements would also be going exponential. And where will the energy for that come from?
And yes, even without positive feedback, it would take several decades for forcing to relax after carbon emissions ceased. Which is very unlikely.
So I really do think that it's time to consider active mitigation. But I'm not even very optimistic about that, given the likely positive feedbacks. Requisite mitigation requirements would also be going exponential. And where will the energy for that come from?
Sorry...that's not what global warming does.
Changes in weather patterns and seasonal events are absolutely a part of warming.
Why not? Even assuming that the runaway is unstoppable, that's a fixed quantity. The final outcome will be
runaway CO2 + everyone else's CO2 + our CO2
which term do "we" have control of exactly? also... define "we"?
Speaking for myself, I live in a country in which my current elected leader claims that CO2-related climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese and who plans (essentially politically unopposed, at least for the next 2-4 years) to undo what little protection prior administrations have put into place to try to help.
This does not give me a feeling of having any control whatsoever over the situation, but I'd love to hear what you think the realistic options are.
Speaking for myself, I live in a country in which my current elected leader claims that CO2-related climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese and who plans (essentially politically unopposed, at least for the next 2-4 years) to undo what little protection prior administrations have put into place to try to help.
This does not give me a feeling of having any control whatsoever over the situation, but I'd love to hear what you think the realistic options are.
which term do "we" have control of exactly? also... define "we"?
I initially wrote "I" instead of "we", and I should have stuck with that formulation. I have control over my own emissions. Climate change isn't a binary thing. The more CO2, the more people will (possibly) die. My choices still have an impact on the outcome, on top of whatever runaway effect there is (or isn't).
I initially wrote "I" instead of "we", and I should have stuck with that formulation. I have control over my own emissions. Climate change isn't a binary thing. The more CO2, the more people will (possibly) die. My choices still have an impact on the outcome, on top of whatever runaway effect there is (or isn't).
It seems pretty clear that nobody is controlling any of it very well. And regarding the Chinese, I do appreciate the justice in cutting some GCC slack for less-industrialized nations. But since China has become such an effective economic competitor, that slack has become very spinnable.
s3e3 of The Newsroom captured this brilliantly.
> I haven't read that concern recently, so I'm hopeful that scientists no longer feel that way, but it is alarming to see this day has come.
As others have said, this only became more proven. Even with a non-linearity at out-of-observation CO2 levels that causes temperatures to drop the resulting weather patterns will be... unpleasant.
As others have said, this only became more proven. Even with a non-linearity at out-of-observation CO2 levels that causes temperatures to drop the resulting weather patterns will be... unpleasant.
Don't worry, the continuous state of conflict and social/political upheaval will be a handy distraction from all of that.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/10/permafrost-greenhouse-gas...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
'runaway' is hard to predict, perhaps even hard to define, but we're getting a much better handle on climate change feedback mechanisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
'runaway' is hard to predict, perhaps even hard to define, but we're getting a much better handle on climate change feedback mechanisms.
[deleted]
I'm curious how much this phenomenon might affect CO2 levels compared to the deforestation of the Amazon, which I have read in the past is the single most disastrous human action when it comes to climate. The Amazon forest is vast and produces a significant percentage of the world's oxygen. The balance we have seen the past few thousand years is being upset not only by industrial pollution but by depriving the world of its CO2-to-O2 conversion machinery in Amazon as well as the ocean algae. A reduction in algae, which seems to be happening and is possibly due to pollution, will be catastrophic. There is also the methane deposits on the ocean floor that are being released because of increased acidity caused by CO2. This is creating a deadly cycle that may be accelerating the greenhouse effect.
I doubt that there's anything we humans can do at this point other than preserve and restore the Amazon, stop polluting as much as possible, and pray.
Earth by David Brin is a very good novel that describes a grim future some 40 years hence. It goes off into pure sci-fi regarding black holes bouncing around the earth's core, but the predictions in the novel seem pretty realistic. He speculates that as the Northern Territories and the Siberian tundra thaw, people will move north and build towns to get away from the increasingly tropical conditions in previously moderate latitudes.
Something not touched upon in that novel but which we are seeing today is the spread of tropical diseases like zika into new areas. This is one of the scariest prospects, actually; the next great plague will probably come from a previously unknown tropical virus or bacterium.
I hope the Mars colonization project proceeds apace.
I doubt that there's anything we humans can do at this point other than preserve and restore the Amazon, stop polluting as much as possible, and pray.
Earth by David Brin is a very good novel that describes a grim future some 40 years hence. It goes off into pure sci-fi regarding black holes bouncing around the earth's core, but the predictions in the novel seem pretty realistic. He speculates that as the Northern Territories and the Siberian tundra thaw, people will move north and build towns to get away from the increasingly tropical conditions in previously moderate latitudes.
Something not touched upon in that novel but which we are seeing today is the spread of tropical diseases like zika into new areas. This is one of the scariest prospects, actually; the next great plague will probably come from a previously unknown tropical virus or bacterium.
I hope the Mars colonization project proceeds apace.
even the most inhospitable places on earth (even post global warming) are far far more hospitable than the best places on mars.
Right. You can at least breathe in Antarctica.
And terraforming Mars would be several orders of magnitude more expensive than even a massive readjustment of Earth's climate.
And terraforming Mars would be several orders of magnitude more expensive than even a massive readjustment of Earth's climate.
Terraforming is a nice long term thing but I would think some underground habitats could be built in the short term. If there's some water ice, oxygen, and useful minerals such as iron that can be harvested, a colony could be almost self-sustaining once they've set up their solar power, smelters, digging equipment and fabricating tools. Probably about a thousand people would be the tipping point.
I'm imagining a turn-key colony that initially accommodates 1,000 people and can expand arbitrarily, that is robotically prepared, then the humans arrive to a heated, lighted, oxygenated, self-sufficient habitat. Once this has been standardized, it's a matter of dropping these in various spots around the planet, not too far apart, humanity can then colonize the planet in 1,000 person increments.
It's not a solution for our climate problems back on Earth, obviously, but it's a way to ensure some redundancy, should the Earth become uninhabitable through climate catastrophe or war. Or an asteroid strike.
I'm imagining a turn-key colony that initially accommodates 1,000 people and can expand arbitrarily, that is robotically prepared, then the humans arrive to a heated, lighted, oxygenated, self-sufficient habitat. Once this has been standardized, it's a matter of dropping these in various spots around the planet, not too far apart, humanity can then colonize the planet in 1,000 person increments.
It's not a solution for our climate problems back on Earth, obviously, but it's a way to ensure some redundancy, should the Earth become uninhabitable through climate catastrophe or war. Or an asteroid strike.
Expensive? By all measurements it's impossible.
Then why do engineers/scientists keep talking about how they'd do it.
This seems like a huge issue, and frankly I'm terrified by it. That said, what's with the article?
Where are the numbers? How much of a contribution is this likely to have on atmospheric CO2 levels? All this says is "bad news everyone", but doesn't quantify it.
Where are the numbers? How much of a contribution is this likely to have on atmospheric CO2 levels? All this says is "bad news everyone", but doesn't quantify it.
> The study didn't address the issue of greenhouse gas releases from thawing permafrost
The article breathlessly pretends this isn't the case.
The article breathlessly pretends this isn't the case.
The permafrost thaw and associated carbon release is not new. For example, David Lawrence presented a model of its impact in the Stanford EE380 Colloquium on April 5, 2006, over a decade ago. The talk is no longer online, but his slides and abstract are available. http://ee380.stanford.edu/Abstracts/060405.html The phenomenon and its impact were not a new discovery even then.
I understand how the personal responsibility plays into the climate change and already follow most of the best practices: biking to the office, driving electric (Ontario electricity), energy conservation at home, reducing consumption, but feel that I can do more.
Can someone suggest a few environmental charities that can be donated to?
Can someone suggest a few environmental charities that can be donated to?
No sure if you already do this, and know it has been said 1000xs before, but seriously, reducing/cutting meat consumption is probably one of the largest/cheapest impacts you can have for the personal cost.
https://foodtechconnect.com/2014/01/17/infographic-of-the-we...
And if you have the financial means to take the risk to be picky about your job (and are technically inclined), have a read of Bret Victor's "What can a technologist do about climate change?" post, so much to be done assuming it's not all too late already.
http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
Most charities are about damage control, not dealing with the problem.
Another option, is invest in a Solar Share program if they are available in your country. Possibility for good returns and helps build more solar energy.
https://foodtechconnect.com/2014/01/17/infographic-of-the-we...
And if you have the financial means to take the risk to be picky about your job (and are technically inclined), have a read of Bret Victor's "What can a technologist do about climate change?" post, so much to be done assuming it's not all too late already.
http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
Most charities are about damage control, not dealing with the problem.
Another option, is invest in a Solar Share program if they are available in your country. Possibility for good returns and helps build more solar energy.
What I've come to realize now, with the feedback mechanisms, the denialists can keep at it forever. Look, the CO2 is really coming from the permafrost, not coal! It's coming from the oceans! (Which some people have already claimed to me.)
I wonder what will happen to the National Flood Insurance Program when Florida is underwater.
They send payment via USPS: "The check is in the mail."
Hey, hey! Why the downvote? I thought it was funny: your mailbox underwater, you swimming out to get the check....
[sigh]Oh, well, no fun here...
Hey, hey! Why the downvote? I thought it was funny: your mailbox underwater, you swimming out to get the check....
[sigh]Oh, well, no fun here...
Wow. Nice to see the verb "portending" in a headline. Not one you see often nowadays.
mbroncano(2)
giardini(2)
My one crumb of comfort will be seeing the expensive coastal houses of property investors be destroyed.
I really should get some land high above sea level while it's still cheap and undesirable.
I really should get some land high above sea level while it's still cheap and undesirable.
hah, you jest. The rich will simply appeal to local, state and federal levels to ensure backstopping of any property damage reinsurance claims for "acts of nature".
You and I will foot their bill because they have more representation than we do.
You and I will foot their bill because they have more representation than we do.
I don't endorse your glee at the woe of others but you really, really should "get some land high above sea level". It may be a rumour, but I heard that the "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski's former Montana cabin site may be up for sale. It might be just what you're looking for!8-))
Water happens to have one of the highest, and I would argue, the most important thermal capacity of all the compounds we're likely to come into contact with daily. Water has about 5-10x the heat capacity of most common things and so heating up the all the oceans by say 2 degs average is an ENORMOUS amount of energy.
Why is this important? The reason we have climate refugees today is not the water level but rather the higher intensity storms that the warmer waters spawn. Far before ppl are forced from the shores by rising waters they will be forced from the shores by massive, frequent, destructive storms that, instead of say destroying 1/1000 homes, will destroy 1/100. Eventually it will be economically non-viable to live in storm-prone zones. And those zones will increase in size over time to go far inland (away from fresh water), causing more migration.
This is happening NOW and will be a major factor in the lives of all our children.
It's easy for ppl to dismiss rising sea levels because it doesn't seem dangerous and happens over decades. It's far harder for ppl to dismiss weather disasters that they might have some first or second handed experience of or, more likely, a visceral fear of.
Maybe we should have a different metric? So instead of sea rise/year we should have expected floridian homes destroyed/year.