8 ms·

I believe this is the case when MSM are not blowing things out of proportion, so by comparison it looks like an understatement. This doesn't "spell doomsday" fo

I believe this is the case when MSM are not blowing things out of proportion, so by comparison it looks like an understatement. This doesn't "spell doomsday" for the upcoming generations. First, I believe we are already well on path to sustainable energy. Let's be honest, any planet-wide change will take time, especially when affected by economic means. Granted, world-level dictatorship may achieve zero carbon emissions in a few decades, but I strongly doubt that that is what you want. On the other hand, renewables are surging even with our current level of technology. Any sudden technological breakthrough (be it batteries, fusion energy or room-temperature superconductance) will accelerate it even further, but it's not necessary for the transition. Humanity will surely switch to renewables in a century. Second, consequences of rising global temperature are harsh, but in no way there are a "doomsday". Do you really believe that loosing Californian fertile grounds will end the humanity? We will adapt and so will the ecosystem in general. It may be costly and inconvenient, but people already live both in the desert (like Northern Australia) and in tundra (like Alaska). Not the end of the world. Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy. All in all, I strongly believe that your asteroid analogy is an over-exaggeration.

graeme 10y ago
For yours points: 1. Renewables in a century? We'd have burned through a large chunk of buried by then. With massive degrees of warming 2. I'm not sure you understand likely warming scenarios. The world doesn't just warm a bit, then stay stable at a new normal. We are triggering runaway feedback effects. At a certain point, even if emissions are zero, the earth keeps warming. 3. This may be something we'll have to do. But it wouldn't stop ocean acidification, for one. Sealife is already dying mysteriously. Not to get into any of the massive unknowns of manually controlling the atmosphere. Or the political difficulties of doing so while countries face famines from farmland losses and droughts, leading to migration on a scale vastly exceeding what we have now.
- lambdadmitry 10y ago
  1. Yep, in a century. I don't see how we can realistically do that faster without some sort of planetary Stalin. You think that would be a better option? 2. "Runaway" is relative and it will stabilize at some point. The particular point is debatable, but it's surely not a Venus-like environment (not until the Earth geology stops). Earth has seen much, much warmer times (palms-on-Antarctica-level warmer) and yet there was a thriving biosphere. Moreover, even the harshest predictions are on the scale of decades thanks to the immense thermal mass of oceans and atmosphere, compared to years if not months that we need to block a large part of incoming sunlight. 3. Ocean acidification is bad and a demise of the great barrier reef will be a pity, but it will not end humanity. Look at the comments around here: people are seriously considering mass-scale human extinction in a decades. Do you really believe that ocean acidification will lead to that, especially in the developed countries? Sure, there will be political difficulties and mass migration. But it's challenges, not a sudden-death-from-above like an asteroid that GP invoked.
  - graeme 10y ago
    Oh, I had interpreted their asteroid remark loosely, in the sense of "a really bad thing is forecast to arrive several decades from now!" rather than "sudden death will arrive several decades from now" 1. I actually think we'll keep burning all the carbon unless technology makes it economically inefficient to do so (because the alternatives are better). I guess by my critique here I meant to say that I thought your timeline would leave to worse results than you thought it would. And no, I don't think we'll have human extinction from climate change. But, I think the consequences will be dire. Right now we have a very large world population, and it's still growing. We're managing to feed ourselves now, but only tbrough great technical feats in agriculture that have increased yields. And we basically require all the land to do this, and a network of global trade in foods. What happens when some portions of land become unusable? When droughts worsen? When war erupts due to food pressures and large crop areas can't have capital intensive techniques used on them? If war disrupts global trade? I think our system is very fragile, and premised on continuous improvement. Do you think a lot of people will die this century if we continue on our present course, or do you think we'll manage to produce enough food regardless?
kogepathic 10y ago
> but people already live both in the desert (like Northern Australia) and in tundra (like Alaska). Presumably you're referring to Aboriginal Australians and Inuit/Eskimo peoples? It might be useful to note that these groups of people are known for their utmost respect toward nature, and the fact that their communities are largely sustenance based. > Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy. If this were truly the solution to global warming, I find it difficult to believe that no one has already done it. Saying "can be cheap and easy to deploy" would lead me to think of this were actually true, Greenpeace would already be doing it. I believe that your explanations don't stand up to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Climate change is accelerating, and it is a big deal for our and future generations.
- lambdadmitry 10y ago
  I'm referring to places like Newman [0] or Norilsk [1]. Those places have nothing to do with "utmost respect toward nature", as they are settled for mining stuff. However, they are fine examples of people being able to thrive and support a modern western-level living even in harshest of environments. No need to ditch air conditioning or your favorite SUV. > I find it difficult to believe that no one has already done it At this point there is no need to. The population that matters most politically (so-called "first world countries") are not affected by global warming enough to require drastic active measures. There is not enough political capital to be won in leading international talks on active Earth cooling. However, if the pain become real enough, talks will be held, rockets will be launched and the Earth will be cooled. > Greenpeace would already be doing it First, AFAIK Greenpeace is mostly against active measures. Second, "cheap and easy" is relative: it's "cheap and easy" as in "building a dam", not as in "occupying an oil rig". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman,_Western_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman,_Western_Australia [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Places like Norilsk are not self-sufficient. They are able to support a "modern western-level living" because of massive supporting infrastructure in more hospitable locations. Where do you think their food comes from, for example?
xg15 10y ago
> Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy. (Emphasis mine) Isn't that basically the "chemtrails" conspiracy theory? The irony would be pretty entertaining if we ended up actually realizing that to combat climate change.
- stillsut 10y ago
  No, contrails are condensed water vapor, and they are shortlived enough they contribute ~.0001% warming effect observed. Aerosols, usually a sulfate, are particles, which block sunlight, like the ash from volcanic eruptions. Most eruptions put the ash into the troposphere where it sinks to Earth relatively quickly. By placing sulfates into the stratosphere, they become 100x longer lived, and thus a small amount can have a strong cooling effect.

graeme 10y ago

For yours points: 1. Renewables in a century? We'd have burned through a large chunk of buried by then. With massive degrees of warming 2. I'm not sure you understand likely warming scenarios. The world doesn't just warm a bit, then stay stable at a new normal. We are triggering runaway feedback effects. At a certain point, even if emissions are zero, the earth keeps warming. 3. This may be something we'll have to do. But it wouldn't stop ocean acidification, for one. Sealife is already dying mysteriously. Not to get into any of the massive unknowns of manually controlling the atmosphere. Or the political difficulties of doing so while countries face famines from farmland losses and droughts, leading to migration on a scale vastly exceeding what we have now.

lambdadmitry 10y ago
1. Yep, in a century. I don't see how we can realistically do that faster without some sort of planetary Stalin. You think that would be a better option? 2. "Runaway" is relative and it will stabilize at some point. The particular point is debatable, but it's surely not a Venus-like environment (not until the Earth geology stops). Earth has seen much, much warmer times (palms-on-Antarctica-level warmer) and yet there was a thriving biosphere. Moreover, even the harshest predictions are on the scale of decades thanks to the immense thermal mass of oceans and atmosphere, compared to years if not months that we need to block a large part of incoming sunlight. 3. Ocean acidification is bad and a demise of the great barrier reef will be a pity, but it will not end humanity. Look at the comments around here: people are seriously considering mass-scale human extinction in a decades. Do you really believe that ocean acidification will lead to that, especially in the developed countries? Sure, there will be political difficulties and mass migration. But it's challenges, not a sudden-death-from-above like an asteroid that GP invoked.
- graeme 10y ago
  Oh, I had interpreted their asteroid remark loosely, in the sense of "a really bad thing is forecast to arrive several decades from now!" rather than "sudden death will arrive several decades from now" 1. I actually think we'll keep burning all the carbon unless technology makes it economically inefficient to do so (because the alternatives are better). I guess by my critique here I meant to say that I thought your timeline would leave to worse results than you thought it would. And no, I don't think we'll have human extinction from climate change. But, I think the consequences will be dire. Right now we have a very large world population, and it's still growing. We're managing to feed ourselves now, but only tbrough great technical feats in agriculture that have increased yields. And we basically require all the land to do this, and a network of global trade in foods. What happens when some portions of land become unusable? When droughts worsen? When war erupts due to food pressures and large crop areas can't have capital intensive techniques used on them? If war disrupts global trade? I think our system is very fragile, and premised on continuous improvement. Do you think a lot of people will die this century if we continue on our present course, or do you think we'll manage to produce enough food regardless?

kogepathic 10y ago

> but people already live both in the desert (like Northern Australia) and in tundra (like Alaska). Presumably you're referring to Aboriginal Australians and Inuit/Eskimo peoples? It might be useful to note that these groups of people are known for their utmost respect toward nature, and the fact that their communities are largely sustenance based. > Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy. If this were truly the solution to global warming, I find it difficult to believe that no one has already done it. Saying "can be cheap and easy to deploy" would lead me to think of this were actually true, Greenpeace would already be doing it. I believe that your explanations don't stand up to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Climate change is accelerating, and it is a big deal for our and future generations.

lambdadmitry 10y ago
I'm referring to places like Newman [0] or Norilsk [1]. Those places have nothing to do with "utmost respect toward nature", as they are settled for mining stuff. However, they are fine examples of people being able to thrive and support a modern western-level living even in harshest of environments. No need to ditch air conditioning or your favorite SUV. > I find it difficult to believe that no one has already done it At this point there is no need to. The population that matters most politically (so-called "first world countries") are not affected by global warming enough to require drastic active measures. There is not enough political capital to be won in leading international talks on active Earth cooling. However, if the pain become real enough, talks will be held, rockets will be launched and the Earth will be cooled. > Greenpeace would already be doing it First, AFAIK Greenpeace is mostly against active measures. Second, "cheap and easy" is relative: it's "cheap and easy" as in "building a dam", not as in "occupying an oil rig". [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman,_Western_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman,_Western_Australia [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk
- vidarh 10y ago
  Places like Norilsk are not self-sufficient. They are able to support a "modern western-level living" because of massive supporting infrastructure in more hospitable locations. Where do you think their food comes from, for example?

xg15 10y ago

> Third, it's possible to drop global temperatures in a few months' time if direly needed. Ranging from orbital sunshades to tropospheric aerosols, solutions can be cheap and easy to deploy. (Emphasis mine) Isn't that basically the "chemtrails" conspiracy theory? The irony would be pretty entertaining if we ended up actually realizing that to combat climate change.

stillsut 10y ago
No, contrails are condensed water vapor, and they are shortlived enough they contribute ~.0001% warming effect observed. Aerosols, usually a sulfate, are particles, which block sunlight, like the ash from volcanic eruptions. Most eruptions put the ash into the troposphere where it sinks to Earth relatively quickly. By placing sulfates into the stratosphere, they become 100x longer lived, and thus a small amount can have a strong cooling effect.