[slackline]

(although its phrase I first heard in Bill Hicks' Rant in E Minor)

[Offwidth]

3. (most importantly) is there some as yet unknown innovation around the corner that renders the issue irrelevant.

No. Even if such were discovered, we couldn't implement it fast enough.

I think you are wrong there. History shows that 'game changers' in science usually can't be predicted and often shift things real fast. This could apply to energy, CO2 cleaning or food. Its irresponsible of course to rely on this, so the slow track to fight damage must also be followed in any case. Any one else catch the Dimbleby Lecture a few days back as this was a good laymans summary of this area?

The story is more bleak in my view for ecology. I despair with the environmental damage being inflicted on our planet. I remember hitching a lift with Moff across Sabah in 1992 from Kinabalu to Sandakan (part of our honeymoon). Kinabalu is a beautiful island reserve of old rain forest with the valuable trees logged out, so should survive a while yet, but its very much the exception (there is also good mountain granite there). The journey to Sandakan was like a transit through hell: mile upon mile upon mile of destroyed rain forest being readied for oil palm monoculture. The burnt trees like black teeth screaming their last complaint at a brutal apocalypse. At the other end there was good depressing stuff on the death march atrocity carried out by the Japanese on allied troops and other prisoners. Plus there is Sepilok where you see the Orangutans displaced from the wrecked rain forest. Then you think: 'my air travel is part of the problem'. So the guilt maximises my ongoing wish to share this memory as a very small part of the massive worldwide economic carnage (including that on the seas with pollution and industrial depletion of fish and mammals). I know some ecology will adapt and survive but the loss of most of whats left of the rain forest seems pretty much certain within 20 years.

[Johnny Brown]

You have far more faith than I in science. I don't think humanity or science has ever tackled anything even remotely on this scale before.

[Johnny Brown]

Bollocks. Not a hope that will happen in time. Just the cost of putting anything in orbit will make this prohibitive.

[tomtom]

Bollocks. Not a hope that will happen in time. Just the cost of putting anything in orbit will make this prohibitive.

Yup, we're already past the point of no (simple) return...
Sadly I believe that to a degree we're all ferked - the only question is to what level we're ferked and whether - once everyone finally realises we've screwed the planets climate and decides to do something about it - we can maintain things at a manageable mid ferked level...

[Johnny Brown]

This thread has certainly been a fascinating insight into why everyone is carrying on regardless anyway. What really worries me is that these are the intelligent, informed folk. We're fucked.

[petejh]

It's certainly an issue that holds great potential for despair and a general head-in-the-sand type reaction. Which, on top of inertia, greed, fear and scepticism is another part of the reason why it's so hard to come up with solutions - how do you deal with an issue that 99% of people don't want to face up to - a bit like trying to convince a friend to quit heroin.

I wouldn't say we're all totally cunted though. This guy has it nailed with logic, technology and clear thinking: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/] [url]http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/[/url]
He just needs a few billion more people to get psyched about his visions of how we should be behaving, a total and utter about-turn in political attitudes toward capitilism, mass outbreaks of common sense amongst ordinary citizens of the US, and co-operation and good will between every major industrialised nation around the planet.

That or an armageddon.

Home heating efficiency won't cut it   


Up the revolution 

[slackline]

Bollocks. Not a hope that will happen in time. Just the cost of putting anything in orbit will make this prohibitive.

Yup, we're already past the point of no (simple) return...
Sadly I believe that to a degree we're all ferked - the only question is to what level we're ferked and whether - once everyone finally realises we've screwed the planets climate and decides to do something about it - we can maintain things at a manageable mid ferked level...

Doesn't matter, life will go on....but not as we know it....



(What would be useful would be to leave a record of what caused the fuck up should intelligible life ever evolve again).

He just needs a few billion more people to get psyched about his visions of how we should be behaving, a total and utter about-turn in political attitudes toward capitilism, mass outbreaks of common sense amongst ordinary citizens of the US, and co-operation and good will between every major industrialised nation around the planet.

  Neighbours can't even get on with each other, good luck with larger scale co-operation!

[tomtom]

Some (randomish) thoughts about this from my cold addled brain...

I thought a few years back that Katrina and Rita might be game changers in terms of US public oppinion on climate change and future perils etc.. but apparently not. So what type/size of 'event' is going to make the US sit up and think that shit - sea level rise, changing storm patterns/magnitudes/frequencies etc.. is down to climate change and we need to do something about it....

The problem with 'natural disasters' is that their effect is a creeping one - sea levels creep up - hurricane magnitudes start to grow - and coastal/flood defences are raised accordingly etc.. Maybe 2-3 years out of 5 with record/catastrophic flooding on the Mississippi would tip the balance (as its 1/3 the country..).

Democracy itself is a pretty clumsy mechanism for imposing rapid change - as it is a mechanism of consensus, it needs to wait until the majority think one way or the other (being very general..). Its interesting to look at how China has instigated many policies at a national and local scale to eventually wean itself off fossil fuels and to reduce pollution levels. You could say they that they dont give a shit about the planet but can see what is going to happen and are planning accordingly (which tbh is better than what the west is doing!). I'm not advocating dictatorship for the rest of the world (comrades) but pointing out how it does allow you to make the dramatic sort of changes that may be required to avert future climate bad shit etc..

ramble ramble ramble... in the meantime I suspect we'll muddle on along our global scale ponsi growth pyramid scheme until the world runs out of punters to feed into the bottom of it...

TT

Penned from my 2.5 star bunker in the peoples republic of Kingston upon Hull.

[Oldmanmatt]

If you look at the space elevator (perfectly feasible, just expensive) or the "bolas" model, it is more than fair to say "this can be done, now".
The most major obstacle to these technologies is a financial one. With our current financial model, such massive capital investments are simply impossible; requiring a degree of global cooperation beyond imagination today.

Today.

When I listen to the "we're all doomed" arguments, I am reminded of Lord Kelvin's crap of just over a century ago, "we know all there is to know, science is dead" (badly paraphrased for dramatic effect).

The "argument from personal incredulity".

I sound more positive, in this discussion, than I actually feel.
I suspect great suffering ahead.
I feel it is a necessary step in our evolution.

I work heavily in the realm of technological advancement (even if it is a an obscure part of the field) and cooperate extensively with academics (in Milano and Genova). It is truly stunning how often they fail to see the potential of their ideas, looking for academic glory; rather than practical development. That changes once the Engineers get hold of the ideas. This is something which is happening at an increasing rate, thanks to technology.

Seriously,

Watch this space.

( and don't underestimate where things like "Graphine" will take us).

[slackline]

I've mentioned it on these forums somewhere before (possibly even this thread), but if this artificial leaf which is purportedly 10-times more efficient than the real thing sees the light of day it could change a lot of problems associated with available energy.

Academic references....

Pijpers et al (2011) Light-induced water oxidation at silicon electrodes functionalized with a cobalt oxygen-evolving catalyst PNAS 108 (25) 10056-10061

Kannan MW Nocera DF (2008) In Situ Formation of an Oxygen-Evolving Catalyst in Neutral Water Containing Phosphate and Co²⁺ Science 321  (5892) 1072-1075

Lewis NS Nocera DG (2006) Powering the planet: Chemical challenges in solar energy utilization PNAS 103 (43)15729-15735

More from the same research group

[Johnny Brown]

I like the 'do the math' guy's site but I don't think his vision of the future is very likely. I'm all for more locally based economies (importing bottled water from the Alps makes me seethe, for example), but that doesn't mean we won't have more technology based lifestyles than now.

I think the best hope is there is some short-term climate havoc somewhere populated that causes some real panic. Nemo pointed me at some records from Greenland, not got time to look it up but I think around the younger dryas event at the end, temps went up stupidly quickly, 10 degrees in as many years (or somesuch).

In the short term I find Germany's abandonment of nuclear incomprehensible. That actually is current technology that could get us through this.

[Bonjoy]

I tend toward the view that change will be ad hoc and forced by business as usual literally becoming impossible to maintain. The only hope I see for the worst of climate change being avoided is some sort of partial collapse of the current paradigm (I think this will be a result more of economic/resource issues than climate chaos, although this will feed into the problems) . I do not think change will come as a matter of choice. Ultimately that which cannot be sustained will not be sustained, however much paper money you throw at it.
I don't however see this as an excuse for individuals to not do what they can. It may be ultimately futile but at least we may find it a little easier to look our children in the eye.

[tomtom]

I think the best hope is there is some short-term climate havoc somewhere populated that causes some real panic. Nemo pointed me at some records from Greenland, not got time to look it up but I think around the younger dryas event at the end, temps went up stupidly quickly, 10 degrees in as many years (or somesuch).

Heatwaves could be the required havoc... 2003 (and 2010 in Russia) being notable..

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7017/abs/nature03089.html
and

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6972/full/nature02300.html
with Summer 2003 being 'off the scale'...

(they estimate the return period of 2003 summer as 9000 - 46000 years.. eek.

[Oldmanmatt]

I think the best hope is there is some short-term climate havoc somewhere populated that causes some real panic. Nemo pointed me at some records from Greenland, not got time to look it up but I think around the younger dryas event at the end, temps went up stupidly quickly, 10 degrees in as many years (or somesuch).

In the short term I find Germany's abandonment of nuclear incomprehensible. That actually is current technology that could get us through this.

Methane Clathrate...

I believe this is the leading contender for that event and the Storegga slide that precipitated the release of the methane. (correct me if I'm wrong Bonjoy, you're way more up to date on current thinking than I am).

Methane being a far more (by an order of magnitude) potent "Green house gas" than CO2, this is a catastrophic event which has been hanging over the earth for eternity.
(Warming the oceans doesn't help with that...)

It is interestingly, a possible short term patch on the energy question as it is considerably less potent/harmful burnt and is a veritable sword of Damocles hanging over us now; unburnt.

The Nuclear question is simply one of ignorance and unfounded fear... punter me if you like, but it is nowhere near as dangerous or polluting as it's public image would paint it. Take a look at the comparative evidence for exposure from, say, air travel; to that of living in the Chernobyl area or Fukushima...

I'd find it but it's easy to google and I've got to do some work today....

[Paulos]

Just one of many great articles by the Post Carbon Institute on peak oil:

http://www.postcarbon.org/article/734311-5-gas-long-hot-crazy

[slackline]

The Nuclear question is simply one of ignorance and unfounded fear... punter me if you like, but it is nowhere near as dangerous or polluting as it's public image would paint it. Take a look at the comparative evidence for exposure from, say, air travel; to that of living in the Chernobyl area or Fukushima...

I'd find it but it's easy to google and I've got to do some work today....

This is a good reference for radiation exposures from different sources...

[Oldmanmatt]

If you read that carefully, it reinforces my point...
Carefully, as you need to remember the different time scales in the various examples and don't just focus on the size of the boxes and colours.

[Oldmanmatt]

While we're on the subject of energy...

< http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17219991 >

[petejh]

Sounds like a distantly-related process to that of creating chlorine from brine by electrolysis of the brine, without the massive input of power. The chlorine plant where I currently work uses mercury cell rooms to create chlorine from brine - the plant operators inform me that the cell rooms use the electrical power equivalent of Liverpool each day (could be bollocks?). A similar process uses membanes in place of the mercury. Seems like there's lots of clever ways of chemically manipulating commonly found resources.
I don't think technology is the barrier to finding clean ways of generating energy - as pointed out elswhere we can already cover our electrical generation needs with exisitng clean (and clean-enough) technologies. It's the liquid fuels which allow the transportation and hence the current economic system to work that are currently proving impossible to replace.

I'd be interested to know more about what (if any) are the benefits of global warming. It's harder to find solid science on this than it is for the disadvantadges, there must be some good scenarios - it can't all be bad for everyone.

[Oldmanmatt]

It wouldn't be the first time the planet had been ice free, since the dawn of life; just the first since we came along.
In truth (and it's not an excuse for our idiocy), this is a process (GW) which has been occurring  for the last 14k years or so and we are not in a true interglacial yet. What we are doing is accelerating that process.
The two subjects of environment and economics are so tightly bound up, it hurts.

[tomtom]

I'd be interested to know more about what (if any) are the benefits of global warming. It's harder to find solid science on this than it is for the disadvantadges, there must be some good scenarios - it can't all be bad for everyone.

Well, you'll be able to grow wine in Yorkshire (fancy buying some land in the Wolds - nice chalky soil - south facing slopes...), People living a few km from the sea may have sea front properties in a few 10's of years...

There will be many areas that benefit from warmer climates as well as those that suffer. The real issue is coping with the change. Its pretty hard to move cities like New Orleans, New York, (Hull ) - or move x00 million people in low lying deltaic nations like Bangladesh.. The richer nations can/will adapt to a large extent. The poorer nations less so. Many civilisations have developed to live with problems/variability with climate - so we will too - but the changes will prove expensive and probably unpopular. Though I'm sure some hedge fund managers will make a killing on it...

With change comes new hazards of course. Landscapes adapt to the conditions they exist under - so once you start raising the temperature, changing the groundwater, changing rainfall, flood likelihoods etc.. then you can upset the balance that has developed. Numerous examples of this - permafrost melting - all the strucural/geotech issues involved with that (let alone the increased release of CH4 that Matt talked about), desertification, dust storms, dune progression/invasion. In the Himalaya glacial melt floods and valleys blocked by glaciers/debris suddenly releasing water. Increase magnitude of rainfall events - leading to larger less frequent floods - aside from flooding all sorts of erosion/deposition/engineering issues there.. sea level change... all sorts of issues there from increased inundation risk to increasing rates of coastal erosion..... The earth is continuously changing - and shifting - and the surface, ecosystems and everything else adjusts accordingly. But the rates of change that are happening at the moment appear (I hate to use this word) unprecidented - that is we've no records of the CO2 changing this rapidly and climate seems to be following suit.. (this may be due to precision/resolution of palaeo-records so I hate to use unprecidented but most evidence suggest thus). So, if one of the driving forces of change (climate) shifts rapidly, then things will also adjust or shift at a rapid rate - certainly a rate we're not used to seeing in our brief experience of this planet.
 

[i.munro]

I think there's a danger here of thinking of a step-change in temperature ie a few degrees of warming & then a new equilibrium.
The sort of thing we could adapt to. This isn't what climate change is. What we have started is a process of constant & accelerating change. (As long as the pollution continues & for an unknown period after)

It may well be possible to make wine in Yorkshire... for a few years. but that wine growing region is going to keep moving & faster every year.
It's ver hard to move New York. It's a lot harder to constantly move your whole population

[petejh]

I'm playing devil's advocate.

It's interesting how your answer started trying to list some minor positves (wine from Bradford), went on to more neutral ground - hedge fund managers making money from misfortune, and quickly got back into a negative narrative. Says a lot about how focussed people are on the horror stories of global warming (I'm not denying them, see above). But is that useful to only focus on one possible outcome?
I'm not cheerleading for anything, but there might also be significant positives, or at least neither negative nor positive points, in a world which is many degrees warmer, notwithstanding the now well-known negatives?

[tomtom]

I'm playing devil's advocate.

Never!!

but there might also be significant positives, or at least neither negative nor positive points, in a world which is many degrees warmer, notwithstanding the now well-known negatives?

Are you Donald Rumsfeld