Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum"It's worse than we thought." Sound familiar?
"While scientists express confidence that the earth will continue to warm in response to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, fine-tuning those projections has been a challenge. The majority of estimates fall between a rise of 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit), which leaves quite a wide range of uncertainty.
While the numbers may seem relatively trivial to the layman, they represent a vast range of potential impacts on society in terms of sea-level rise, heat waves and extreme weather.
A new paper in Friday’s issue of the journal Science adds to that discussion, suggesting that future warming may fall on the high side of climate projections.
“There’s been a lot of uncertainty and quite a range of this quantity called climate sensitivity in the climate models,” said one of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist in the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “If you take our results at face value, it certainly indicates that the climate change will be at the higher side of what’s been put forth previously, and that’s not good news.”
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/a-new-tweak-for-global-warming-predictions/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The rather unbridled optimism of decades past. Just 20 years ago nobody thought we'd see much above 2-2.5*C rise in temperatures by 2100. And now the science tells us that we could be seeing up to 6/6.5/7*C by 2100 under a business as usual scenario if most or all positive feedbacks play out as much as possible(though not taking negative feedbacks and carbon sequestration into account), or at least 4.5-5*C if they play out as most people would expect them to.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Like planting hemp on every single square inch of fertile land so that we can turn around and reburn it again?
The horn has plenty....
The horn has plenty....
Just keep saying it...
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)that even when they knew what direction the truth lay in, most scientists were afraid to stray too far from the pusillanimous center - for fear of being told to fuck off by people like you.
I hope the whole contingent of "don't rock the boat-ers" are still alive when the temp hits +8...
cprise
(8,445 posts)If I were to add anything to that concise assessment, it would be that the few don't-rock-ers that read and understood the Precautionary Principle did an about face and walked straight away from it. Weighing the odds in light of what's at stake is a foreign concept to them.
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)Pretty fucking much. Scientific reticence of the worst kind. Not telling the truth.
NickB79
(19,246 posts)I've seen very little evidence that any of the potential negative feedback patterns (and there are far fewer of them than the positive feedbacks) are in any way close to kicking in, or having the same impact as the positive feedback patterns if they actually do.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I also really wouldn't be surprised if they were stronger than we first thought, also, given how much we've learned over the past 10 years or so.
Here's one type that's currently being studied, btw; cloud cover.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-paper-shows-negative-feedback-from.html
(Important note: Upon further investigation, it does appear that the site has at least a notable slant towards anti-AGW skepticism, it seems. While that is indeed unfortunate, the document it references does still appear to be valid.)
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)But they could now suddenly stronger than when you first heard of them?
I think you are grasping at straws here. Thats ok. Its depressing when you start seeing everything hit the fan, and we are conditioned to believe in cornicopia; we flail helplessly with the only tools we have been given. This will pass.
on edit: I noticed you finally posted a link
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Personally, as I've said before, could the SHTF? Perhaps so, yes. But is it? Not necessarily at this point.
But they could now suddenly stronger than when you first heard of them?
What I was trying to say is that just as positive feedbacks may have been a little stronger than we first thought, it also stands to reason that the same very well could go for negative ones as well.
I don't have all the answers. But I do call 'em as I see 'em.
cprise
(8,445 posts)negative feedbacks
1. Low clouds (this can go either way though)
2. Albedo change from flora response (e.g. the Gaia hypothesis, so its not very likely)
3. Albedo change from desertification (might not kick in until we're "well done"
4. Snow cover (increased precipitation under the right conditions will produce lots more reflective snow). When I crunched work units for Climateprediction.net, one of the interesting possible outcomes was a "snowball Earth" due partly to this effect (I think atmospheric inversion was another cause). There seemed to me no rhyme or reason to where it popped up-- very chaotic. Snowball Earth was pretty much treated as a failure mode.
FWIW, the snow that hurricane Sandy dumped on W. Virginia might someday be considered to be a hint or taste of how snow can be a negative feedback.
But I believe the posited negative feedbacks may be so poorly understood because they scarcely exist if at all. They might have had a better chance of appearing over longer periods of time if we hadn't been slamming the atmosphere with GHGs so quickly.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I seriously doubt it's because they 'scarcely exist', though.
cprise
(8,445 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)Because that's what you're implying, that climatologists prefer to investigate processes that lead to warming and to ignore conceivable causes for cooling.
I think that scientists gravitate toward things which have a real presence or effect when they consider what they are going to research. Past experience suggests plausible avenues for new research.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It just seems that there hasn't been all that much research done on negative feedbacks, and certainly, I do think it would be prudent for them to spend a little more time researching those, as well as positive ones.
"I think that scientists gravitate toward things which have a real presence or effect when they consider what they are going to research. "
I don't doubt that, but the truth is, scientists are only human. Sometimes things get overlooked on accident for whatever reason. It happens.
cprise
(8,445 posts)...has kept broaching the idea of negative feedbacks, but has only gotten around to the positive ones? This, despite a well-financed effort to use scientists to discredit the idea of runaway global warming.
And I know for a fact that researchers have been trying for a long time to fit negative feedbacks into their climate models (increased snowcover is just the most obvious one). The problem is, in order to be considered accurate the models have to be able to take real data from the past in order to predict the present (then they can be used to predict the future). The negative feedbacks that fit the data are few and weak.
Your position is like casting doubt on the election because we didn't let Sasquatch vote.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)So its just bad luck that a whole scientific field for several decades at least
...has kept broaching the idea of negative feedbacks, but has only gotten around to the positive ones?
The problem is, though, I've never see any proof that they have been doing a lot of in-depth research into negative feedbacks, compared to positive ones.
And I know for a fact that researchers have been trying for a long time to fit negative feedbacks into their climate models (increased snowcover is just the most obvious one).
I'd really like to see some proof that it's been done more than just on rare occasions, though.
The negative feedbacks that fit the data are few and weak.
Maybe that we know of, true. But again, it's become obvious to me that research on negative feedbacks is still lacking in some sense; some parts of the puzzle do seem to be missing, even if the assertion that they've tried this more than occasionally happens to be correct(which is possible). I guess it's also possible that certain fields might need to advance a little more before we have all the answers where that is concerned.
Your position is like casting doubt on the election because we didn't let Sasquatch vote.
Not really.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Well, Googling (climate "negative feedback" just gave me 1.5 million hits, and I bet some of them are about real science. Why not try looking up some actual facts rather than just blowing smoke? It's becoming more and more obvious that it's "the things you know that ain't so" that's getting in your way. You're spouting pure opinions, most of which are easily demolished with a 0.23 second Google search.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And yes, there is a difference.
I think you should go back and read over what I wrote.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Use airheaded opinions with nothing to back 'em up.
Sound like GW Bush with the "there hasn't been enough research" lines.
Try to get the last word on most of the AGW threads.
Bush was polite about it, too, but he was still a denier troll. Tell us why we shouldn't Alert your posts...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If you want to at least hear me out, TBH, I started a Google search, and upon looking at the results, it does seem to indicate that my previous thoughts concerning the amount of negative feedback research done, were definitely incorrect to some degree. So, I guess I was wrong.
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)Oops, the models underestimated. Consistently.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'll start my own Google search and see what I can find. Again, it's possible that there could have been a lot of research done, and that maybe we just need to wait for more advances in the science. I'll let you know what I find......
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)The science is good. If anything the science downplays it because of people like you who regularly post garbage downplaying AGW.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Really? You do realize that climate change research isn't totally static, right? I should point out that just 20 years ago or so, many scientists didn't think we'd go much beyond 2*C by 2100. We now know that up to 6-7*C is possible. Okay? All I'm saying is, there's always a chance to improve our knowledge.
(Also, upon a cursory glance of my Google search, it does seem that you and GG may have been correct re: negative feedback research. Will be further researching this......)
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)The scientists see the high end projections and to save their asses they keep downplaying it. The latest projections are horrific. Wait until sea ice is gone. You'll live to see it unless you have cancer or are a shit driver (let's hope you drive properly).
Any "knowledge improvement" is likely to be worse than what is expected. BTW, the latest trend is 4C or thereabouts. Do you have any comprehension as to what that will do to the environment? Coupled with Peak Oil (which is inevitable, even basic physicists understand that). The world is going to go to shit and there is absolutely no evidence we plan to do shit about it.
Negative feedbacks were a denialist hope, a dream, a fantasy, they aren't happening. Hell, I would've believed that they might be possible were it not for the historical decline in arctic sea ice. Now we have a guaranteed, 100% positive feedback, Greenland is melting at an increased rate, the Antarctic is melting at an increased rate (300 cubic km every year). It's mind boggling. It literally is incomprehensible.
There were some idiots who used to post here denying the effects of climate change. One fucking dumbsit actually believed that waste heat from nuclear power plants was the cause. What a fucking idiot he was. Waste heat. Contributing less than .02%, the cause of climate change. The fucking sun has brightened more than that over the years. This kind of deflection is simply nonsense. Fuck the deniers. The shit is about to hit the fan. We've hit the tipping point. We need to make a ten trillion dollar investment if we're going to stem climate change. It's simply not happening. Hell, the politicians are worried more about the goddamn fiscal cliff. No, that's not what's going to fuck humanity. Drought, sea level rise, increased temperatures are going to fuck humanity.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Now they're not holding much of anything back.
It's simply not happening.
That could be true. But let's not make it out like it's inevitable and I'm actually afraid that if enough people start doing that, then it'll end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy for sure. And that's a damn good reason not to!
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)It's inevitable. Unless you can show us how we're actually going to stop this from happening, it will happen. Math, statistics, logic, reason, it's going to fucking happen.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Math, statistics, logic, reason, it's going to fucking happen.
What it actually does tell us is that it COULD happen, but that it's far from inevitable. That's what logic & reason tells us. That's exactly what it tells us.
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)If the arctic continues melting at the rate it is melting it will be gone for good swaths of time in the next 5 years.
Now. We know that a weight, if dropped will fall to the ground.
Likewise, we know that the arctic is undergoing unprecedented sea ice melt.
Therefore logic and reason would suggest that the likelihood that this will happen is high.
Therefore if you are to say that "it is far from inevitable" you must provide data that contradicts the logic and suggests that it is not happening.
You have not done that.
Deniers will happily point to antarctic ice gains and claim that an equilibrium is being had. Yet, antarctic sea ice gains are due to higher winds and in the end do not balance out the equation. Overall, globally, sea ice is decreasing. Once the arctic loses the ice volume, it's all over, there will be little opportunity for ice to reform due to seasonal ice that survives the summer, and the arctic will be largely ice free, permanently, as a "new normal" for humanity to enjoy.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I said that the worst case scenario of global warming, mainly in terms of temperature, is far from inevitable; I wasn't talking about Arctic ice melt, which we do know is happening faster than precedented.
Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #43)
XemaSab This message was self-deleted by its author.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)So far nothing's happened. For 50 years nothing we've done nothing, thanks to the punctilious pronouncements of the scientists - that have been expoited by the deniers as being "no consensus, open to doubt" in order to to prevent action.
Instead, it's getting worse. Every damn year. And you want to castigate us for pointing that out, for drawing dark conclusions about the consequences? No, sorry. We're halfway up shit creek, and we still don't actually have a paddle. I'm going to mention that little fact, plus the notion that it might be unpleasant to drown in shit. Which there is now a very good chance we will do.
Calm, sober, scientifically-balanced gradualism hasn't prompted any action whatsoever. Maybe a bit of colourful yelling is needed. It sure can't make things any worse than they already are
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)You are casting uncertainty and doubt on the whole AGW awareness effort through your presence here. You've been told often enough that it looks like a deliberate tactic.
I don't like it.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Absolute nonsense. In fact, if you're so worried about people casting uncertainty on the AGW awareness effort, why don't you go after Malcolm P.R. Light, who made an irresponsible and erroneous claim that all life on Earth will be extinct by mid-century?
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/08/charting-mankinds-expressway-to-extinction.html
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/global-extinction-within-one-human.html
And then there's Guy McPherson:
http://guymcpherson.com/2009/10/apocalypse-or-extinction/
http://guymcpherson.com/2012/06/were-done/
C'mon. If you want to criticize somebody, these two deserve plenty of it, because they actually have been irresponsible.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)"I know I am, but what is he?"
Take responsibility for your own positions. Show some spine, man.
Edited to add: Light and McPherson are on our side in this bun-fight.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'll admit, I'm definitely not a 'doomer'. Okay? I tend to be more optimistic than some, primarily because of the fact that I tend to be pretty pragmatic.
And certainly, I can admit that I don't think the science is ENTIRELY settled at the moment; there's still things we probably could improve out knowledge on.
But I can honestly say this:
1.) Do I believe that ACC is real? Yes, because there has been loads of scientific research indicating this, over decades.
2.) Do I believe that humanity is the primary cause? Yes, because that's were the facts point.
3.) Can we mitigate climate change? Yes, because there is plenty of scientific research that tells us what can be done.
4.) Do I believe that humanity is doomed? No, primarily because our ancestors have survived at least one event that was sudden and more acute than AGW: The eruption of Toba, 72k years ago.
5.) Do I believe we need to act as soon as possible? Yes, definitely. Better a little late(now!) than never.
Again, I understand that some will disagree with me, for whatever reason.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)In your opinion,
1. What will happen if we don't do anything about it?
2. What are the chances of the world doing anything effective about it?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)1.)"What will happen if we don't do anything about it?" The science tells us that no real policy on climate change could see a temperature change as severe as 6-7*C if most or all feedbacks play out(MIT says it's about a 1 in 4 chance.....Frankly, I'm a tad pessimistic about that. IMHO, it might be more like 1 in 3.).
2.)It really depends. The worst case scenario could happen.(If you're old enough to remember the Cold War, btw, the U.S. and the Soviets had enough nukes to destroy every single major town on the planet a couple times over. It may not have been THE most likely scenario, IMO, but still very possible.) But it's also possible that it may not. I think we've all noticed, for example, that we've seen a large wave(no pun intended here) of concern and discussion about climate change since Sandy made its landfall....and it was only a Category 1! That says something to me.
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)GuiderGlider has mentioned the "Precautionary Principle" from time to time, btw. I would agree with this; even if we're not sure if whether or not the worst-case scenario will happen, it's really better to act as if it is when it comes to mitigation strategies, rather than the opposite.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)A. Only two nations needed to agree.
B. There were actual bombs that needed to be dealt with - real, near-term, concrete threats.
C. Dealing with them didn't require a reduction in global GDP
In one sense the comparison is appropriate, however:
They didn't really deal with the problem, they made it look like they did. There are still 19,000 nuclear warheads in the world...
The situation is marginally safer today because the political situation has improved - rather than concentrating solely on war the ex-cold warriors are now burning fossil fuels to improve their economies...
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)I am a technologist. I think we have the capacity as an intelligent species to fix the issues.
The problem is that I see no evidence that we're going to do that. Thus the alarmism. We're not working toward any reasonable solution and we're diving head long into oblivion.
What's disagreeable about your petulant position is you refuse to accept that as it stands now nothing of substance is being done about the catastrophe that humanity is facing.
I would disagree with GG on some points. I think that after a mass die off human civilization will recover (he appears to think the die off will be bigger than I suggest; thus rendering civilization a historical footnote; I can't be sure how big the die off will be but I cannot say it won't happen, because there is no evidence we're going to be prepared for the coming climate and energy crisis, no evidence whatsoever).
You can't actually back up your position because in reality you have no facts to back you up. It's just a feeling you have. That's OK. We all have our feelings. But get down to the nitty gritty of the science and you'll see that we're looking at a new world famine, water shortages, and energy shortages, it's not going to be pretty.
They'll spend billions trying to get at the shale. I still maintain that, but I have since realized it won't be enough. Climate change is going to be the factor that, coupled with peak oil, is going to lead to a massive die off. The timing sucks hard for humanity, particularly as we continue on the path that we are.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And certainly, the science does indeed tell us that water & energy shortages are on the horizon, and famine is likely to be more widespread. I don't doubt we're in trouble.
But I'm not so sure that we'll just roll over and do nothing. Do I know this for a fact? No, I don't. We'll all just have to wait and see what happens.
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)We're talking a couple of decades. Each decade we don't act we need to spend $10 trillion more. At this point we're very likely near if not have surpassed the tipping point. The costs if we have hit the tipping point (which, given the rapid decline of the arctic, I believe we have), will be far greater. Millions will die.
If not billions.
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)As if we're going to leave the coal in the ground.
Coal production is up despite coal consumption is down.
Why is that?
Because we're exporting it!
That's the nature of the beast, Joe.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But the opposite can also happen, if too many people think that the worst is inevitable.
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)This is evidenced, again, by the elected socialist leaders of Latin America who said that they weren't doing shit at Rio+20.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)That may be true, to an extent, but do you think there'd be riots or anything if energy prices were increased by say, 10 or 20 percent, other than from perhaps those few truly fucked up morons who make up the "Tea Party"? I think not; some people might be a little disappointed, but other than those on the economic fringes of society, most families would learn to move on, and make changes if need be. We have a fair share of idiots in this country but we're not that spoiled as a whole.
It would especially be helpful, though, if more information about alternative energies were to reach more people.
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)In the United States, probably not.
Elsewhere? Like in countries that aren't reducing their internal carbon footprint?
Absolutely.
I keep mentioning Rio+20 because it seems you don't get it. The developed world is certainly reducing its carbon footprint. Overall global emissions, however, are going up. The US may not be burning as much coal, but producing more coal. That coal is simply being exported to other countries to burn.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I keep mentioning Rio+20 because it seems you don't get it. The developed world is certainly reducing its carbon footprint. Overall global emissions, however, are going up. The US may not be burning as much coal, but producing more coal. That coal is simply being exported to other countries to burn.
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean things can't change.
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)There is a difference. You are saying absolutely that they have the possibility to change but without assigning a likelihood. This is just circular at this point. Provide me some evidence that things are likely to change.
CRH
(1,553 posts)What steps do you see as realistic using technology or social adaption, to either partially mitigate the heating, or adjust to the coming climate disruptions until the thousand or so years the climate will need to stabilize?
If you don't have time for a long post, how about a couple of links so I might envision the possibilities you feel could make a difference at this late of date. Thanks hrh
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)But we won't do the geoengineering until it gets so bad that a lot of people die and a lot of capital is lost. A couple of Sandy's isn't something that even the US can deal with.
You don't start geoengineering without the entire planet on board, and you won't get the entire planet on board without the effects of climate change being significant enough to convince those in power that it's necessary. Given that, even with the greatest arctic sea ice melt (and land ice melt) in human history (this includes analysis from sediments, proving that the sea ice was fine even during the Medieval Warming Period), we still haven't done much, it's going to take a long time before we, politically, do something about it.
A lot of developing countries are still trying to build up and the developed countries will not sacrifice their profit for the sake of developing countries.
You can read about geoengineering here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering
There are many ways to go about it from removing CO2 from the atmosphere (energy intensive) to painting roofs or roads (negligible effects, highly expensive). The cheapest and most effective means would be to utilize stratospheric sulfate aerosols. These aerosols typically come from volcanoes and we have observed cooling effects from massive volcanic eruptions (either directly or indirectly through the geologic record). If we engineer them and spray them into the high atmosphere we can achieve the same cooling effect. It should be relatively cheap compared to the other methods.
There's a big problem with this though. First you have to have it nailed down just how much aerosols are needed, and that will require intensive surveys to test the radiative forcing caused by CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). That's done by launching a probe to do the analysis. That won't happen until the end of this decade at the minimum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLARREO
And of course, one cannot ignore the possibility that we overshoot geoengineering and wind up taking the planet into a global ice age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
An overshoot into a Snow Ball could happen if we don't do the CLARREO-style studies and approach geoengineering from a purely scientific standpoint. ie, if we just start throwing aerosols up and just see what happens, we could easily mess that up, in a really bad way (what happens if a super-volcano; I know unlikely; hits at the same time we're messing around?).
As far as the optimistic view, I think that ultimately we'll move to more self-sufficient cities, vertical farming, and the like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
Human waste (outside of most perspiration and exhalation) will be recycled back into the system to be made into feed stocks to grow plants, so it'd be a closed loop life support system, for the most part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_ecological_system
I could go on for a long time here about the various technologies, space based solar power, etc, but I'm sure I've got you on the right track to see where my position is. I still maintain that there exist in my mind the possibility that the coming die off may be worse than I think it will be (I think it will be less than a few billion). If it's worse the scenarios start to get tighter. Global depression as bigger storms cause more damage and food shortages arise. A shell oil crunch where new reserves get increasingly harder to get. Civil if not international wars over resources. Mass migrations due to sea level rise, etc. The worse the die off is the harder the recovery.
And of course, a massive increase in temperature would necessitate massive adaption by humans, and to go into that would be complex. We'd have to probably move underground. Human population would be extremely reduced. The possibility to retain technology at that point will be very difficult, you'd have to have all your industry in a Matrix-style underground facility of sorts. Not impossible, just hard, especially with the geopolitical issues that would arise from said temperature increase.
CRH
(1,553 posts)I've read quite a few of your posts in the past, so not many surprises.
Though a technologist, you are careful not to paint an over optimistic version of business as usual after a bit of geo engineering. It is more as if you readily admit the catastrophic direction we are headed, and then posit potential technologic and social benefits if conditions will still allow. It is refreshing you approach the scientific unknown with trepidation and caution, coupled with admission of uncertainty of untested theories.
That you question how large a population will exist and what global social condition will remain, before mitigative and adaptive steps will be taken on a global level, indicates you are not just a technologist, but also are grounded in a cautious realistic potential.
The future of a surviving faction of humanity employing new social adaption in new technologic above or below ground encampments utilizing vertical farming, solar powered, convection designed structures that recycle everything, are visions of how it could be if some level of sociopolitical order is maintained. As you have stated the reality still is dependent on a lot of 'ifs' and a lot of circumstances for which we have no control.
The guarded optimism is healthy when perusing the possibilities of our plight.
Thank you for the links and further insight into your visions, of how it could be, if we are very lucky. hrh
cprise
(8,445 posts)...using empirical data? Where is the rebuttal? Where are the politicians who even remotely base their policy on Light's projections?
That's been the status quo in the environmental movement for the past 25 years and it has backfired!
If there are any alarmists (causing undue alarm) then as best anyone can tell they are still far more accurate than deniers.
If Light is wrong, at least what he has presented is substantial enough to be properly debunked in the scientific community.
But your endless repetition of a Republican Party plank is slippery, over-opinionated denier-ism that far too many people from grade school teachers to US presidents have already internalized as doubt about global warming. You have drawn a line in the sand based on a preconceived idea of what is and is not acceptable science.
BTW- I found even more negative feedbacks that scientists have considered and researched over the years, including the "CO2 fertilization" theory which was shown to have only a small, temporary effect. It still was pushed as a big "controversy" by the denier lobby. Realclimate.org alone has 720 pages that consider negative feedbacks.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Including this one on Pacala and Socolow's wedgies:
In 2004 Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow published a paper in Science in which they argued that a pragmatic, but still difficult, way of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels over the long term was via the implementation of seven “stabilization wedges” over the next 50 years. The idea was very simple: each wedge represented one in-hand technology or societal practice that could be implemented, relatively slowly at first and increasing linearly with time, to make a small but growing dent in the rise in CO2 emissions, stabilizing them at 2004 levels (about 7 Gigatons C/Year) over the next 50 years (see figure below).
A couple of weeks ago, Socolow updated this work in a brief commentary piece to show where we are seven years later. The results are not encouraging. First, and most significant, rather than decreasing the emissions rate, the lack of implementation of these strategies has been accompanied by an accelerated rate of emissions, such that annual CO2 output is now just under 9 Gt C/yr, a 2 Gt/yr increase. Accounting for natural sequestration, this represents an increase of about 13-14 ppm CO2 over that time. But this is not the full story by any means. As Socolow notes, if we re-set the clock to 2011 and start the wedge strategy implementation now, it would now take nine wedges implemented at the proposed rate of the original seven, to accomplish the same goal (keeping emission rates constant over the next 50 years).
The stabilization wedge concept, circa 2004 vs 2011
Here is the real kicker however. Even if we were to do so, starting today, with stable emissions for 50 years and then falling gradually from there to zero emissions over the following 50 years, an additional ~50 ppm of CO2 would be added to the atmosphere by 2111, relative to what would have been added had the seven wedge strategy been initiated in 2004. This equates to a roughly 0.5 W/sq m forcing increase, and a ~0.4 degree C global temperature increase, assuming an equilibrium sensitivity of 3 deg C per CO2 doubling and that the additional 50 ppm is added on top of the increase that would have occurred even if the 2004 wedge strategy had in fact been initiated. In other words, seven years of inaction, even if we immediately begin implementing the strategy now and fully carry it out over the next century, have larger climatic consequences over the next century than one might expect.
We are doing nothing. We will do nothing effective until after everybody is convinced there is a problem. By then it will definitely be too fucking late. Based on the current evidence, the probability of this approaches 100%. Anyone who pins the hopes of humanity to this piece of horseshit is naive or worse.
Edited to add: Martin Hoffert in a 2010 article (PDF) for Science estimated that we'd need 25 wedges rather than just 7... And two years later, we still haven't begun.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'm not much of a betting man, GG, but, realistically, I'd say there's about a 25-30% chance of nothing getting done by 2050, and about 15% by 2100. Those aren't really good odds at all, IMO, but it's still not inevitable by any means. Though I can say this about Jim from RealClimate's last statement:
In other words, seven years of inaction, even if we immediately begin implementing the strategy now and fully carry it out over the next century, have larger climatic consequences over the next century than one might expect.
This may very well be true........
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)He says 25 wedges, not just 7. It's time to stop pointing to PS04 as any kind of support for a realistic climate action program.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)...well, for stabilization, that is. But I'd also like to say that perhaps it's best to apply the "Precautionary Principle": better safe than sorry, IMO.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)They have the feeling of being feelings.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)All we need for my projections to come true is ... well, nothing actually. Just keep on keepin' on. Humans are really, really good at that. Change for no good, apparent reason? Not so much.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2012, 06:45 AM - Edit history (1)
My assertions are also partly based on past actions, on top of a pragmatic worldview. Remember when the 1970 Clean Air Act was passed? Just 10, or hell, even 5 years earlier, maybe, most people never would have seriously thought that such a thing would ever be implemented nationwide. Granted, there was one in 1963, too, but the 1970 Act really put things into the forefront, and two years later, in a shocking move(shocking, in light of who was President at the time!), Nixon's administration created the EPA, probably one of the few good things he ever did in office. And not many thought that much progress would be made with CFCs, either, back in the '80s. And yet, in the mid-'90s, they were practically history, thanks to the Montreal Protocol. Much of the success in both cases was thanks to activists, like those in GreenPeace, or Rachel Carson, who dedicated their lives to bettering the world. And I think we can all be thankful for that, at least.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)This is the reality IMO. We cannot do this without curbing production (thereby reducing GDP). How politically viable would that science-based solution be?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It may have caused a temporary backslide in profits for certain industries, but it wasn't the end of the world(no pun intended!), and we ended up being better off because of it.
Political reality does provide obstacles, that is true, but nobody needed votes for the Montreal Protocol to be successful. This shouldn't be the case with reducing Co2 emissions, either, and I think Western leaders need to make that perfectly clear.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The only objectively demonstrable method of reducing atmospheric carbon thus far has been reducing the aggregate amount of energy consumed (while reducing carbon intensity of such energy has proven to be ineffective after a 40% reduction over the last few decades).
If wealth is an abstract representation of the net available energy that can be consumed, throttling that consumption level will reduce wealth most assuredly. If growth levels have a direct relationship to energy consumed (and they do), then throttling that consumption level will reduce economic growth most assuredly.
So you must come to a point where you either are advocating for a reduction in growth & wealth, or you give-up since you realize the political unfeasibility of it all. So far, you are topically dancing around blunt truth.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
If wealth is an abstract representation of the net available energy that can be consumed, throttling that consumption level will reduce wealth most assuredly. If growth levels have a direct relationship to energy consumed (and they do), then throttling that consumption level will reduce economic growth most assuredly.
Contrary to what I've heard from some skeptic circles, this isn't necessarily the case. You can reduce consumption of dirty fuels(especially when it comes to power plants!) without causing any notable damage to the economy with viable alternatives out there.
So you must come to a point where you either are advocating for a reduction in growth & wealth, or you give-up since you realize the political unfeasibility of it all.
You don't need a long-term reduction of economic growth, and certainly not that of overall wealth(at least not of those groups that really count, i.e. the middle class), in order to institute real positive changes.
So far, you are topically dancing around blunt truth.
Not really.
In all honesty, the argument that reducing fossil fuel consumption will necessarily cause significant damage to the economy, may very well have been plausible some 30-35 years ago, when not many viable alternative fuels were really available. But things have changed, and it's now a matter of getting it out there and fighting Big Energy lobbyists and such. Unfortunately, though, the U.S. is far from the only country with a corruption problem.
If you truly honestly believe there are no other alternatives(even though plenty of scientific research says that we can do a lot more than that!), well, that's fine really. But I'd rather stick to the science.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Contrary to what I've heard from some skeptic circles, this isn't necessarily the case. You can reduce consumption of dirty fuels(especially when it comes to power plants!) without causing any notable damage to the economy with viable alternatives out there.
The process of replacing dirty fuels or implementing cleaner technology to reduce the carbon intensity of energy has been happening for well over 40 years. Refer to GG's graph below for a handy reference to illustrate the effectiveness of these practices in reducing this intensity:
Yet, to reiterate (again and again), this is what has happened to atmospheric carbon:
Compare the two graphs. Shake your head four times. Look again. What's is the missing factor? Aggregate consumption of energy, which has increased, cancelling out and intensity reductions. In fact, as more alternatives come online, they only make dirty sources cheaper, fueling more infinite growth.
But I'd rather stick to the science.
Except for the science you ignore.
It isn't that you repeatedly go after "alarmists", but you think that we can solve this without fundamentally rocking the boat (a boat you must value if your entire problem-solving centers on maintaining this sick, earth-exploiting status quo). Its akin to irrational religion at this point.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
The process of replacing dirty fuels or implementing cleaner technology to reduce the carbon intensity of energy has been happening for well over 40 years. Refer to GG's graph below for a handy reference to illustrate the effectiveness of these practices in reducing this intensity:
What this graph actually says is only that carbon intensity was going down quite a bit up until 2001 or so, and nothing about non-fossil alternate fuels. In fact, we haven't seen much widespread implementation of the latter at all, at least not here in America(outside of perhaps nuclear power).
In fact, as more alternatives come online, they only make dirty sources cheaper, fueling more infinite growth.
And alternatives making dirty sources cheaper? WTF are you talking about? I'm sorry, but when you look the factors involved, as I have, you too, would understand that this hasn't been the case so far, and it certainly wouldn't necessarily be inevitable. It is indeed possible that perhaps some time from now, once alternative fuels do start to take off, that coal companies may become desperate and try to sell their wares en-masse at dirt-cheap prices, especially to still-developing nations. I don't doubt that could happen. But even that may not come entirely to fruition, especially if environmentalists get to have a say, in the U.N. and elsewhere.
Except for the science you ignore.
I haven't really ignored anything, in terms of actual science.
but you think that we can solve this without fundamentally rocking the boat (a boat you must value if your entire problem-solving centers on maintaining this sick, earth-exploiting status quo)
No, I do in fact, realize quite well that we must cease our dependence on fossil fuels. That pretty much IS rocking the boat right there.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Your premise:
Reducing carbon intensity leads to reduction in atmospheric carbon
Scientific data says:
A 40% reduction in carbon intensity over 4 decades has correlated to an increase in atmospheric carbon
Your premise is not grounded in science
And alternatives making dirty sources cheaper? WTF are you talking about?
If alternatives lower the demand of a dirty fuel, the dirty fuel will become cheaper as its supply increases. This is basic economics.
No, I do in fact, realize quite well that we must cease our dependence on fossil fuels. That pretty much IS rocking the boat right there.
But you seem to want to keep building, growing, developing and exploiting other resources with different fuels. You are not advocating a change in the fundamental paradigm of civilization that is destroying the planet. You believe that man can magically grow endlessly, cleanly. Your entire argument pins on our ability to maintain the mindless insanity with hemp. Correct me if I am wrong on that.
This is not boat rocking, whatsoever.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Your premise:
Reducing carbon intensity leads to reduction in atmospheric carbon
And technically, without economic considerations, it certainly would.
Scientific data says:
A 40% reduction in carbon intensity over 4 decades has correlated to an increase in atmospheric carbon
Only thanks continued increases of exploitation. If it weren't for that, the reduced intensity would have also resulted in the slowing of carbon buildup.
Your premise is not grounded in science
Yes, it is.
If alternatives lower the demand of a dirty fuel, the dirty fuel will become cheaper as its supply increases. This is basic economics.
But the main problem is, the supply of fossil fuels isn't increasing. It's the exploitation of them which has. And according to this same law, as supply decreases, it's supposed to get more expensive(which it really has). If economic rules alone were the only factor, our consumption of gasoline & other dirty fuels should have been going down a long time ago thanks to expense.
But you seem to want to keep building, growing, developing and exploiting other resources with different fuels.
And we can keep building & developing. We just need to do it in a smarter way, and, TBH, I would think that might perhaps include a slowing of population growth.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Like chopping down every forest to plant your magic hemp?
Im all for that. Ill be the first in line to write the tragic comedy of what happens when humans have to decide between growing food or energy on their dwindling, finite arable land. My bet will be energy; you can always eat people
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Ill be the first in line to write the tragic comedy of what happens when humans have to decide between growing food or energy on their dwindling, finite arable land.
Sure. Lemme see the script sometime.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Hell, I grow mine on concrete under hydro-powered grow lamps. With all the oil we free up, we will have a ton of fertilizer. Boo-yah.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Really no need to chop down as many trees as we have been.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Or new farmlands we make by chopping down forests?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Why grow & develop? You want to do it smarter, but I ask, is it even smart to do in the first place? What is the point? What is the end goal? Is there ever "enough"?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)After all, Earth doesn't have an infinite carrying capacity, but, OTOH, there's really no reason why the economy has to permanently stop growing as well.
And when you think about, isn't it interesting that the poorest countries are usually the fastest growing ones and the wealthiest are usually the slowest in population growth?
Just thought I might point that out. 
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Addressing your tangent, curbing population growth most certainly will not stop the vast increase in per capita energy consumption (and thereby aggregate energy consumption). Other countries are screaming to catch up (namely China and India and the next cheap labor utopia):
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But I should state, as I have in the past, it isn't really consumption itself that's the problem, but rather, what is consumed........
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)As just plain neutral.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)So surely we can put the option of cutting it on the table, since we won't lose its "goodness"
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)After all, Earth doesn't have an infinite carrying capacity, but, OTOH, there's really no reason why the economy has to permanently stop growing as well.
If the earth can only support so much life, why do you believe that it can (and should) support and infinite amount of economic growth?
Most economic & biological energy on earth comes from the sun. Most organic organisms are fueled by on-demand solar energy as it is processed by the system, with some of that demand meant by solar energy stored in years past (in the form of sugars and hydrocarbons). Most of the economic activity is fueled by a finite amount of stored up solar energy (which you want to shift partially to solar by growing hemp). I'm not sure how we can say there is a limited amount of joules for life but an unlimited amount to drive economic growth, when the vast majority all comes from the same source (the sun). Unless you are a pro-nuker
If we have a limited amount of space to plant food crops, likewise, we have a limited amount of area to plant biofuel crops. The more biofuel means the less area we have for food.
Have you also considered that the carrying capacity of earth is likely inversely proportional to the capacity for economic growth on earth? The more energy we syphon from the natural biological system to grow the economy results in less life that system can support. Chop down a forest to build homes, and guess what...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If the earth can only support so much life, why do you believe that it can (and should) support and infinite amount of economic growth?
Well, for one, look at what I pointed out in the last response.
Most economic & biological energy on earth comes from the sun. Most organic organisms are fueled by on-demand solar energy as it is processed by the system, with some of that demand meant by solar energy stored in years past (in the form of sugars and hydrocarbons). Most of the economic activity is fueled by a finite amount of stored up solar energy (which you want to shift partially to solar by growing hemp). I'm not sure how we can say there is a limited amount of joules for life but an unlimited amount to drive economic growth, when the vast majority all comes from the same source (the sun). Unless you are a pro-nuker
I'm not exactly pro-nuclear but this argument of yours isn't exactly making a lot of sense; the hydrocarbons we use are formed by pressure in the Earth's crust, not by photosynthesis, and take many millions of years to form, and as far as I know, we don't burn a lot of plant material for fuel(well, which wasn't converted to oil long ago that is), other than perhaps some ethanol(like in Brazil).
The more biofuel means the less area we have for food.
Not necessarily for hemp, partly because it's a food crop as well.
Have you also considered that the carrying capacity of earth is likely inversely proportional to the capacity for economic growth on earth?
It's a theory I've considered, but which doesn't really hold water: again, look at the poorest countries on Earth, and the richest. Many poorer nations like Bangladesh and Nigeria, are well beyond their current capacity for a variety of reasons, while some wealthier nations, especially Canada and Russia, do have some room for additional growth.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)It's a theory I've considered, but which doesn't really hold water: again, look at the poorest countries on Earth, and the richest. Many poorer nations like Bangladesh and Nigeria, are well beyond their current capacity for a variety of reasons, while some wealthier nations, especially Canada and Russia, do have some room for additional growth.
Ah, you are only thinking in terms of human life and locally. How many deer live in the suburbs?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And how many deer live in the suburbs? What kind of a question is that?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The more land humans' claim in the name of "growth", the less land left for the earth's natural system, which scrubs our air, cleans our water, and supports multitudes of species (thereby defining the global carrying capacity). The absence of nature in areas of human development does translate to a lower global organic carrying capacity (especially if you consider life outside your species).
You know this stuff. Its basic grade school science. Don't play dumb to obfuscate.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)BTW, you ever heard of this nifty concept called an 'arcology'? It's basically a gigantic, fancier and more self-sustaining version of your average condo or apartment building(tower blocks to Brits). While largely just the stuff of the SimCity computer games or Judge Dredd comics at this point, there are some projects that could perhaps become viable in the near future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology#In_popular_culture
It wouldn't entirely solve our problems, of course, but it might be a good start.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Natural systems spent 3.5+ billion years to create vibrant, self-sustaining environments that all kinds of life, including humans, thrived in. And now your big ol solution--when we abandon and destroy these system--is to reinvent the wheel with our monkey knowledge in a fraction of an instant? Human arrogance is a fine part of the problem.
With that said, these systems already exists. They aren't science fiction. The problem is that we fail to recognize them and live within them. Burning more energy to recreate them (at their expense) seems like an exercise in futility.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And now your big ol solution--when we abandon and destroy these system--is to reinvent the wheel with our knowledge in a fraction of an instant?
No, it's to stop using the stuff that caused the AGW issue and to start repairing what we can; how about reforestation for instance? And "Monkey knowledge?" C'mon man.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)This problem is so complex and large I really wonder if you have taken time to step back and look at the entire system, and how human civilization has interacted with it up until now.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yes I have, and I understand that our problems are more complex than many realize; it's not just about Co2 output, or landfills, or the Arctic ice, or whatever the case may be.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I blew the analysis on my first attempt. Thanks to muriel_volestrangler I got on the right track, and produced this graph later in the thread:
This shows that even though we have been using less fossil fuels overall in the last 40 years, we have been switching towards coal. The higher carbon content of coal has offset the lower aggregate fuel volume, to result in the same amount of CO2 production per megawatt.
Add to that the fact that global primary energy consumption has gone up by 250% since 1970, and it's clear why CO2 is rising faster than ever.
The only way out of this box is for the world to use less energy. Any other approach is doomed to failure. Of course, an approach requiring the voluntary reduction in energy use to the extent that economic activity is sharply reduced is likewise doomed to failure. So in the end, civilization is doomed to failure. We cannot do what is needed.
We have not yet accepted that we are in a box with no acceptable exit.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And that actually explains, even better than the last graph, why we've seen additional Co2.
The only way out of this box is for the world to use less energy.
Well, certainly, we could do without coal, that much is true.
Of course, an approach requiring the voluntary reduction in energy use to the extent that economic activity is sharply reduced is likewise doomed to failure. So in the end, civilization is doomed to failure. We cannot do what is needed.
The problem with this kind of thinking, though, is a.)The argument that reduction in Co2 emissions would necessarily lead to a sharp economic decline has been thoroughly debunked, including by Pacala & Sokolow and others, and b.)More importantly, when did ANY social, economic, etc. movement succeed when it's adherents believe that failure is totally inevitable?
My point is, those of you out there who believe that failure is likely, are of course, entitled to their own opinions, but a legitimate concern that many of the rest of us have is if this thinking becomes too heavily represented, it will ultimately backfire and very well could contribute, perhaps even directly, to actual failure. And that's a risk I'm not willing to take, and I'm sure many fellow environmentalists on DU will at least agree with that.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The Clean Air Act involved only one nation, and didn't require changes to the primary driving force of the economy.
The Montreal Protocol involved a demonstrated, accepted risk, and required changes to the use of one class of products for which replacements were readily available, and required no changes to global infrastructure.
Neither of these situations apply to fossil fuel use. It is the lifeblood of the global economy; replacements are not available; if replacements do become available it will require changes to global energy infrastructure; nations see a competitive advantage in not agreeing to restrictions or changes, and have a sovereign right to refuse;
Plus there there is still enough imprecision in the science to allow politicians to take a "wait and see" attitude. Hell, even someone like you, who claims to get it, steadfastly refuses to allow worst-case scenarios into the conversation and urges caution in accepting dire projections. The politicians just love people with that attitude - they become respected environmental advisers.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
Neither of these situations apply to fossil fuel use. It is the lifeblood of the global economy; replacements are not available; if replacements do become available it will require changes to global energy infrastructure; nations see a competitive advantage in not agreeing to restrictions or changes, and have a sovereign right to refuse;
Some of this may be true to some extent, but there's a demonstrated, accepted risk with ACC, too(even though the deniers will claim otherwise!). And there certainly are viable replacements to fossil fuels. Hemp is just one of the more popular examples. Had it not been for the dirty dealings of certain parties over the years, alternative fuels would likely already be readily available on a large scale as well.
The biggest problem remains to be the status quo; the one bit of good news is that Hurricane Sandy appears to have provided a major blow in favor of US, for once.
Hell, even someone like you, who claims to get it, steadfastly refuses to allow worst-case scenarios into the conversation and urges caution in accepting dire projections.
Caution, yes, but not the kind you're thinking of. What I DO caution against, is telling people that the worst-case scenarios are inevitable and that there's nothing we do can about it, sort of like what irresponsible muttonheads like Guy McPherson and Malcolm P.R. Light have been throwing around lately.
My personal stance is, yes, we should keep the worst-case scenarios in mind, but not to let it really dominate our thinking at the same time, while also keeping the "Precautionary Principle" in mind: The worst-case scenarios(6-7*C if most or all feedbacks play out by 2100 or so) may not come to pass but it is rather prudent to be prepared for the worst anyhow.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:48 PM - Edit history (2)
I think it's virtually certain that we (the global "we" will do nothing whatsoever about carbon mitigation; that climate change, methane feedbacks, extreme weather, ocean acidification, crop losses, genomic disruptions, peak oil, an ongoing global economic recession and international political dysfunction will team up within the next two to three decades to give humanity the biggest kick in the head we've had since Toba.
I think that this scenario is unavoidable, that people have the right to be psychologically prepared for it, and that people like Light and McPherson and I have not only the right but a responsibility to talk about it.
Hemp is great for smoking, but it suffers from massive problems of scale when compared to the 12 million tonnes of oil, 21 million tonnes of coal and 8 million tonnes of natural gas we consume each and every day. We consume 15 billion tonnes of fossil fuels per year. Hemp yields 4 tonnes of biomass and between 15 and 100 gallons (0.3 to 2.5 bbl) of oil per acre. Do the math.
Not to mention that high yields require intensive fertilization, with all the issues of soil depletion, fertilizer runoff and habitat devastation that come along with industrial agriculture.
The idea of using hemp to replace fossil fuels is a pipe dream. I'd rather see us legalize marijuana than try that.
There are no solutions to our predicament that do not involve two things: the massive reduction of human "economic" activity and the massive reduction of our population.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
I think that this scenario is unavoidable, that people have the right to be psychologically prepared for it, and that people like Light and McPherson and I have not only the right but a responsibility to talk about it.
I wouldn't quite disagree, except for McPherson's woefully idiotic "16*C by 2100" gaffes and Malcolm P.R. Light's "Life will be extinct by mid-century" B.S.. There's legitimately preparing people for the worst, and then there's downright fearmongering; Light and McPherson, have been doing the latter, even if not intentionally.
Hemp is great for smoking, but it suffers from massive problems of scale when compared to the 12 million tonnes of oil, 21 million tonnes of coal and 8 million tonnes of natural gas we consume each and every day. We consume 15 billion tonnes of fossil fuels per year. Hemp yields 4 tonnes of biomass and between 15 and 100 gallons (0.3 to 2.5 bbl) of oil per acre . Do the math.
According to my calculations, to plant enough hemp to serve the world's oil consumption:
Let's assume, for our purposes, that every acre of hemp produces 1.75 bbl of oil(definitely a little on the low side, IMHO) per acre. 31 bil. gallons of oil consumed by the world, every year(roughly about equal to the EIA's estimate for 2010) divided by 1.75 equals about 17.7 bil. in the hemp equivalent. If my calculations are correct, that could require about 27,000,000 sq mi. of land for hemp alone to meet ALL of the world's current oil requirements(though I must admit I'm not a math whiz, so this number could realistically be a little higher....or a lot lower, I dunno which.).
For the U.S. alone, it would require about 10.1 million sq.mi., or about twice the country's total land area. But realistically, if we tried, we could do about 2 million sq. mi. at the very most. There's huge potential for your country too: 3.8 million sq. mi. of land is out there, and let's say we could use about a third of that or about 1.3 million, for hemp. And since Canada consumes far less energy than the U.S. does, only about 2 million barrels per day, or about ~760 million per year(Not bad!), or about 434 million in the hemp equivalent.
In this scenario, if Canada were to be entirely self-sufficient in replacing oil, only about 670,000 sq. mi. would be needed. Let's say that Canada replaces about 80% of fossil fuel usage with hemp, that would equal about 542,000 sq. mi; that would leave, in this scenario, about 750,000 sq. mi. or so to be used, and that about half of this is exported to the U.S., equaling about 2.4 million sq. mi.
So that would only replace about a quarter of the U.S.'s total oil energy. So, obviously we can conclude that hemp alone won't be enough. But it's a decent start.
Even so, these calculations are by no means, perfect, and I'll be refining them over time....perhaps I'll dedicate a topic or two to this in the near future.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)would require about 5 times the total amount of arable land in the world (there are 3.5 billion acres, we'd need almost 18 billion acres.
Or 1.5 times the total amount of agricultural land (there are just over 12 billion acres of such land in the world) .
And that's just for the oil. To replace all the coal we'd need to plant 3/4 of all the world's arable land to hemp. And we still haven't dealt with the natural gas problem.
Using hemp for energy is the same kind of problem as proposals to use sugar cane ethanol and bagasse. It's an interesting idea, but is only useful in regions that have low demand, the right soil and climate conditions, and don't need the land for food production.
Most people have no clue how much fossil fuel the world really uses in a year. Scale is the one factor that most consistently reduces these hypothetical silver bullets to real-world brass BBs.
We are leveraging the fact that fossil fuels have been accumulating for 100+ million years. If we estimate that it will all be used up over 300 years, then we are burning it over 300,000 times faster than it accumulated. Or to look at it another way we are burning up over 1000 years of planetary legacy every single day.
Mitigation through substitution is bullshit.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)itself.
And that's just for the oil. To replace all the coal we'd need to plant 3/4 of all the world's arable land to hemp. And we still haven't dealt with the natural gas problem.
Technically, you would be correct, I believe, but do keep in mind that I wasn't operating on the assumption that hemp would be the only alternative used for gas.
It's an interesting idea, but is only useful in regions that have low demand, the right soil and climate conditions, and don't need the land for food production.
Again, hemp can pretty much be grown anywhere, including in some places where normal food crops would have a harder time.
Most people have no clue how much fossil fuel the world really uses in a year.
True, but that's something I did take into consideration when doing the calculations for oil.
Scale is the one factor that most consistently reduces these hypothetical silver bullets to real-world brass BBs.
Somewhat true to some extent, but scale is also not quite as big of an obstacle as some may think. My calculations concerning the U.S. didn't take other countries growing it and trade into consideration, and certainly not the usage of other fuel sources.
If you want to talk about proverbial silver bullets, btw, some people seem to think that shrinking the global economy will necessarily solve all of our problems.......what this theory(and that's all it really is, btw!) continually leaves out is the possibility of wars(the world's militaries are majorly contributing to Co2 output, btw!), continued exploitation by certain countries & companies, and many other factors, including the possibility that gas prices might actually drop, which could eventually lead to MORE civilian consumption under certain conditions; Potus actually pointed this out in one of this year's debate speeches that part of the reason gas prices were so low in early '09 was exactly because of the recession(This would not, of course, be inevitable by any means, but it's not impossible either).
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I'm pretty psyched about that thawing out now. Nevermind the methane release.
what this theory(and that's all it really is, btw!) continually leaves out is the possibility of wars
This "theory" (scientifically supported relationship between economic output and atmospheric carbon) hinges upon the concept that all of mankind will reach an epiphany and work together to stop working so much. This will never happen so 7-8 billion of us will fuckn die, hemp or no hemp on our drought stricken lands.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)the latitudes of Whitehorse and Yellowknife, though, it can be conceded that it'd probably be easier to grow it around Edmonton or Saskatoon (around 53* and 52*N, respectively)
This will never happen so 7-8 billion of us will fuckn die
I don't think so. 1-2 billion? Maybe, and that alone would be a great tragedy. But 7-8 billion? Only with a full-scale nuclear war and at leastone other major disaster, such as Yellowstone erupting, or Apophis hitting East Asia, or whatever, MIGHT get there. Might.
(scientifically supported relationship between economic output and atmospheric carbon)
Somewhat so, to a degree. But again, they are not completely tied in altogether. If I may, look at what happened with Sweden's carbon tax, when it was instituted in 1991(all credit goes to Wikipedia, and associated sources.).
"In January 1991, Sweden enacted a CO2 tax of 0.25 SEK/kg ($100 or EUR 72 per ton) on the use of oil, coal, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, petrol, and aviation fuel used in domestic travel. Industrial users paid half the rate (between 1993 and 1997, 25% of the rate), and certain high-energy industries such as commercial horticulture, mining, manufacturing and the pulp and paper industry were fully exempted from these new taxes.
In 1997 the rate was raised to 0.365 SEK/kg ($150 per ton) of CO2.[112][113] In 2007, the tax was SEK 930 (EUR 101) per ton of CO2.[114] The full tax is paid in transport, space heating, and non-combined heat and power generation. Owing to the many exemptions, oil accounts for 96% of the revenues from the tax, although it produces less than three-quarters of CO2 from fuel combustion.
The tax is credited with spurring a significant move from hydrocarbon fuels to biomass. As Swedish Society for Nature Conservation climate change expert Emma Lindberg said, “It was the one major reason that steered society towards climate-friendly solutions. It made polluting more expensive and focused people on finding energy-efficient solutions.”[115][116]
It increased the use of bioenergy,” said University of Lund Professor Thomas Johansson, former director of energy and climate at the UN Development Programme. “It had a major impact in particular on heating. Every city in Sweden uses district heating. Before, coal or oil were used for district heating. Now biomass is used, usually waste from forests and forest industries.”
Economic growth appears to be unaffected. Between 1990 and 2006, Sweden’s economy grew by 44-46 percent (approx 2,8% annually)"
If the Swedes can do it, then America definitely has a chance as well. The biggest problem, as I've stated, is when will we finally get our acts together? And certainly, no amount of handwringing or doom-mongering from the likes of Light or McPherson, will help us any more than the antics of deniers like the idiot at WUWT, and those who enable them(i.e. the Koch Bros., etc.).
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Or are we to ignore their economic growth was subsidized by the dirty-energy driven global economy (that very global economy that would need to be curbed to accomplish the aforementioned strategy)?
You see the hole here, right? Sweden isn't an isolated system. The larger system that Sweden was within had an increase in energy consumption, and used the wealth that increase produced to purchase their goods.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)There is no hole. The carbon tax benefitted Sweden and it's already had some positive effects in Australia, too. I don't see why America can't do the same thing.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)(if that is what you were trying to show).
Sweden isn't a closed system. The system at large continued to consume more and more energy.
Yes, Sweden "benefited" because the oil was burned somewhere else. But it was most assuredly burned to support their massive export income.
The real way to demonstrate this is as follows:
Create a closed system in a lab with an oil powered robot that does "something". Now reduce the amount of oil you feed it and see if you can get it to do more work (in terms of joules).
Yep, it won't work
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)and the land you describe as "places where normal food crops would have a hard time" is called "agricultural land". While there is three or four times more agricultural land than arable land, there still isn't enough of it. Land other than that has ha multitude of problems from the agricultural point of view - soil composition, water supply, accessibility etc. Those are the reasons we don't use it now. In many palaces we would use it if it was at all suitable.
Here is a page that talks about powerdown and degrowth in context:
http://prosperouswaydown.com/contact-and-information/
1. We will continue to grow, and we can support Business as Usual (BAU) into the foreseeable future either because resources are infinite, or by leveraging technology. This group consists of consumers, capitalists, neo-liberal economists, resource extractors, and other believers in the status quo.
2. We must stop growing, but we can keep what we’ve got now by making some Green changes in how we live, again using technology. Steady Staters, Zero growth proponents, sustainable development proponents, environmentalists, and climate change advocates live here in the idea of reform. The Resilience Alliance, with its emphasis on “retaining the same controls and function” in reaction to systemic change, is probably also in this category? But if we try to keep what we’ve got, is there room for the basic structural and cultural changes that need to be made to adapt?
3. Our economies will contract to match declines in resources, and we must adapt proactively if that decline is to be orderly. Descent, Degrowth, Transition, and PWD groups have this world view of transformation. Most in this category also believe that orderly descent will require relative socioeconomic equality. Perspectives on economic collapse vary, with “doomers” as the most extreme.
The doomers he talks about (of which I am one) generally think that society at large will try to keep operating from belief systems 1 and 2 well past the point when they should have been abandoned in favour of number 3. By doing so, we will enter a regime of accelerating, unmitigatable calamities, and will lose the opportunity to control our descent. This puts us squarely at the mercy of events, resulting in an uncontrolled collapse.
Keep in mind that this is a globally aggregated view, and different regions will take different paths. In the end, though, the entire global system is interconnected to such a degree that even those regions that do take proactive measures will be impacted by the failure of regions that do not, and so run a high risk of collapsing in turn. They may not end up collapsing of course, and may become "pocket universes" of civilization. The problem is that no place on the planet can be considered a closed system any more - every place is at risk from incursions by those with less than altruistic motives.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Trade in hemp won't make the global situation better
and the land you describe as "places where normal food crops would have a hard time" is called "agricultural land".
No, because normal food crops grow well in agricultural land.
1. We will continue to grow, and we can support Business as Usual (BAU) into the foreseeable future either because resources are infinite, or by leveraging technology. This group consists of consumers, capitalists, neo-liberal economists, resource extractors, and other believers in the status quo.
2. We must stop growing, but we can keep what we’ve got now by making some Green changes in how we live, again using technology. Steady Staters, Zero growth proponents, sustainable development proponents, environmentalists, and climate change advocates live here in the idea of reform. The Resilience Alliance, with its emphasis on “retaining the same controls and function” in reaction to systemic change, is probably also in this category? But if we try to keep what we’ve got, is there room for the basic structural and cultural changes that need to be made to adapt?
3. Our economies will contract to match declines in resources, and we must adapt proactively if that decline is to be orderly. Descent, Degrowth, Transition, and PWD groups have this world view of transformation. Most in this category also believe that orderly descent will require relative socioeconomic equality. Perspectives on economic collapse vary, with “doomers” as the most extreme.
The sad thing is, is that 2 and 3 really won't work, either(especially not 3, it's just as fantastical as 1, if not perhaps even more so.). Here's a number 4 solution:
4. We cannot continue to support Business as Usual where dirty fuel usage as concerned. We must transition to cleaner energy as quickly as possible, and certainly, reducing population growth would help. And the sooner these, and certain other things are done, the better off humanity will be in the long run. Collapse of any kind is not inevitable, and a better world is possible, but only if we act; If we allow ourselves to believe that the worst is inevitable, then surely, we will fail. But if we make a stand, then change is possible.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Your #4 sounds like BAU for everything except energy, with the addition of some "birth control for brown people". Neither of which is enough to make any real difference in the next two or three decades, when all the action is going to happen.
It's basically an admission that either there isn't a serious problem (since it's not scaled to be a serious solution); or if there is a serious problem we can't deal with it anyway, so let's just do some easy stuff to make everyone feel better until TSHTF. I actually think it's the second (can't deal with it, so let's do a bit of easy stuff), and that's probably exactly what we're going to do.
So you may be accurately calling the actual path we'll take, while waffling on the outcome.
I keep wondering what might be coming in the IPCC fifth report that's going to scare the wits out of everyone. I'd bet real money it has to do with tipping points and timelines.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The IPCC process does not support polemics. There's peer review out the yin-yang, and everything that passes gets filtered through a fine mesh of bureaucrats and politicians. They don't publish a single word they couldn't defend at The Hague.
I really wonder what the scientists are saying to get a UN official to use that kind of language in public.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I guess it may be just because most people may think that we won't get much above 2*C by 2100. I dunno, perhaps maybe it'll just turn out that the probability of the worst case scenario may be higher than originally thought. Time will tell, I suppose.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)Suddenly new microorganisms - a type of phytoplankton I believe off the top of my head, is multiplying like crazy in the arctic simply because the sea ice melts away to a certain degree in the summer. These phytoplankton respirate methane (exhale), love, of course, to sunbathe, and add to our problems climate-wise.
Another feedback, also mostly unanticipated, is that with the thawing/melting of the tundras and glaciers in Greenland, Canada, Russian Fed/Eurasia we're seeing more methane vents uncovered which were previously covered by surface ice. Again, a problem we didn't need with GHG.
Anther feedback - the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are sufficiently high enough so that the oceans are up-taking more than their share of it and it is dropping the pH of said oceans, thereby dangerously affecting the development of carbonaceous (calcium carbonate if memory serves) shells for various organisms as well as the formation and stability of the coral reefs.
Are these the type of feedbacks you're asking about? Feedbacks...feedbacks...negative or positive? Who knows?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)*for the most part* are much more concerned about trace amounts of radiation than they are about the destruction of the entire biosphere? 
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)joshcryer
(62,271 posts)They justify this by going by "total radiation release" and extrapolating local releases in bad events to the entire planet.
Physics, it doesn't work that way.
But nuclear energy is a dud.
cprise
(8,445 posts)The biggest pro-nuke figures in the establishment also pushed the expansion of coal and fossil fuels in general. And always more roads, bigger vehicles, more exurbia, more sq.ft/house, more consumerism.
As for the kind of discussion going on in this thread, is it gratifying to have someone trying to dominate the AGW threads with denier tactics? Hasn't anyone brought this to your attention before?
joshcryer
(62,271 posts)Not quite deniers, in fact, quite the opposite, admitting there's something, but that it's insignificant.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Who/what are you talking about?
