[Oldmanmatt]

Solar absolutely has a place but I'm note sure whether it's as significant part of the answer as its proponents would suggest as there are problems with storage (electric mountain in reverse??) and base laod, these are however probably chalenges that the technology and market will overcome in places like Oz and other sunny places.

You underestimate battery tech.
Just take a gander at the leisure boat industry, where battery and inverter tech are advancing rapidly.

Even 15 years ago, I was Master of a Tall ship (SY Dream) which could run lighting, TV, Stereos etc etc for 36 hrs between charges (either from a DG or an Alternator coupled to the main engine). That was with a conventional deep cycle bank, 12x2V cells on 24V supply.

And things have moved on dramatically since then.

That battery bank would have provided lighting etc for a couple of 4 bed houses (assuming heating and cooking are done by Gas), during the hours of darkness of even a UK winter.
Coupled with a Solar bank to charge and provide power during daylight hours, I can't see why most homes could not be independent of the grid as the tech stands today? Lots of sailing vessels are now, with a combination of wind, solar, batteries and economy of usage.

I was seeing some huge advances in battery tech during my time with CMC Marine. We were developing ultra efficient motors/motor control and replacing hydraulics in things like thrusters and stabiliser systems; but one of our partner companies (based in Scotland, at work and can't remember their name) were utilising our motors into Electric vehicles (military) and developing some awesome Amp hours from exceptionally compact units.

Given our current theatres of operation (militarily), there is considerable interest in fuel autonomous vehicles, with theoretically unlimited range... 

[slackline]

Running on rubbish: Supermarket comes off national grid to be powered by food waste alone

 

[tomtom]

Solar absolutely has a place but I'm note sure whether it's as significant part of the answer as its proponents would suggest as there are problems with storage (electric mountain in reverse??) and base laod, these are however probably chalenges that the technology and market will overcome in places like Oz and other sunny places.

You underestimate battery tech.
Just take a gander at the leisure boat industry, where battery and inverter tech are advancing rapidly.

Even 15 years ago, I was Master of a Tall ship (SY Dream) which could run lighting, TV, Stereos etc etc for 36 hrs between charges (either from a DG or an Alternator coupled to the main engine). That was with a conventional deep cycle bank, 12x2V cells on 24V supply.

And things have moved on dramatically since then.

That battery bank would have provided lighting etc for a couple of 4 bed houses (assuming heating and cooking are done by Gas), during the hours of darkness of even a UK winter.
Coupled with a Solar bank to charge and provide power during daylight hours, I can't see why most homes could not be independent of the grid as the tech stands today? Lots of sailing vessels are now, with a combination of wind, solar, batteries and economy of usage.

I was seeing some huge advances in battery tech during my time with CMC Marine. We were developing ultra efficient motors/motor control and replacing hydraulics in things like thrusters and stabiliser systems; but one of our partner companies (based in Scotland, at work and can't remember their name) were utilising our motors into Electric vehicles (military) and developing some awesome Amp hours from exceptionally compact units.

Given our current theatres of operation (militarily), there is considerable interest in fuel autonomous vehicles, with theoretically unlimited range...

I looked into this pretty seriously about 10-12 years ago when I lived in a house where wind could have powered it alone.. Its actually pretty easy if you make some changes and basically just use electricity for light and for TV etc.. fridges/freezers are a bit more tricky... but if you cook and heat from non electricity then its quite do-able with a relatively small battery bank. The big lead acid batteries are old school - but work - and can last for 10's of years with care, topping up and the odd bit of maintenance.. This of course is much easier now grid tie invertors are common - so you can just use the grid as your battery (effectively..).

But I moved. And now live in Terraces so its just not feasible..

[Sloper]

The price of crude is now, I think (in recent historical terms) at records lows and new fields are being developed in the North Sea and further affield.

So much for the preductions of the doom mongers and nay sayers about oil reaching $200 per barrel by 2015.

[Oldmanmatt]

The price of crude is now, I think (in recent historical terms) at records lows and new fields are being developed in the North Sea and further affield.

So much for the preductions of the doom mongers and nay sayers about oil reaching $200 per barrel by 2015.

Further development of cheap fossil fuels, would not seem to be good news, given humanity's generally moronic approach to long term issues...

Another couple of DegC anyone?

[Sloper]

Don't worry, capitalism will ride to the rescue, pump a couple of tonnes of fine volcanic ash into the upper atmosphere and we'll be fine.

PLus of course all those other thecnological advances which are allowing greater growth with lower levels of CO2 & etc

[tomtom]

Fraid not. Given the lag in the system we're going to suffer even if we stopped pumping out CO2 right now.

Ocean temps, ice sheets, ice caps, permafrost, methane emissions etc.. All have decedal/centennial response time. This supertankers only heading one way!

[Sloper]

Hence the proposals to pump fine volcanic ash into the upper atmosphere, I think last time that reduced temperatures by a few degrees.

[tomtom]

The problem with geo-engineering is that it creates a whole series of unknown unknowns... to do it at a global scale, to reduce temperatures by 2 degrees for a few decades - not too much, not too little would be very difficult - and very risky... christ knows what additional impacts it would have.

Besides, as I mentioned before, because of the lag in system response, it would take quite some time before any difference was noticed..

[Oldmanmatt]

The problem with geo-engineering is that it creates a whole series of unknown unknowns... to do it at a global scale, to reduce temperatures by 2 degrees for a few decades - not too much, not too little would be very difficult - and very risky... christ knows what additional impacts it would have.

Besides, as I mentioned before, because of the lag in system response, it would take quite some time before any difference was noticed..

I spent several months, in the summer of 2000, in Greenland.
Some enterprising local professor at the Julienhab Uni had been marking the calving face of the closest glacier, on the cliffs, since the mid '70s.

It was well over a mile from the first broad red line to the calving edge by the time I visited and I suspect a few hundred meters more today...

He was a huge, hairy beast of a Dane. He looked as though he should have been bedecked in horned helmet, furs and arm torcs, but he wept into his beer like a baby, as he told us one drunken night, how stupid we all are.

[tomtom]

Because of the sea ice collapse parts of Greenland have seen a 7 SEVEN Degree rise in the last Century. Bonkers.

The wealthy can engineer their way out of things by building more ac units, continuously raising flood defences, moving to more hospitable parts of the world etc... But a chunk of what will happen is probably irreversible now..

[Oldmanmatt]

I don't have any photos of the lines scanned (it is way before digital photography for me). But I had this on my FB.


The vegetation should have completely recovered at the margin, within twenty years (according to the locals), so this represents considerably less than twenty years of retreat.

Edit...

Also, note here the icecap has retreated so far it is no longer calving. Leaving the Fjord ice free all summer and leading to a localised, year round, rise in water temp and therefore less winter ice. And generally less ice issuing into (in this case) the Labrador straight and therefore warmer summer temps.
Meaning it takes longer to cool in the Autumn.
Which means less sea ice in the Winter.


And on...


And on...


It doesn't take a PHD to work out where that's leading.

[Sloper]

We're just waiting for the economic consequences to merit intervention.

[Sasquatch]

We're just waiting for the economic consequences to merit intervention.

I'm not very confident that markets have the ability to foresee change as far down the road as needed to make this happen.  The problem is that people don't tend to have this foresight, and the markets are reflective of people as a whole. 

[Johnny Brown]

By the time the markets react it will be far too late to reverse.

I think living with the consequences will be considerably more sensible option than attempting atmospheric engineering on a global scale.

[petejh]

I'd be interested to hear some theories about the benefits of climate change, there must be some. Two possibles (anyone know?) that spring to mind are newly habitable land as previously ice-encrusted areas become tundra; and access to minerals/rare earths which are essential to the technology of the next 50 years, including, ironically, future battery and sustainable energy technology.

[tomtom]

It's hard to find any benefits of sea level rise.

Wine can now be grown very successfully in S Engkand and probably on the chalk in the Yorkshire Wolds in the future.

But for the gains of some places getting warmer - others will get too hot.

Tundra areas are especially vulnerable as the loss of permafrost gives rise to bogs, subsidence - and most worryingly the melting permafrost leads to the release of large volumes of methane. Methane being 4-10 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than co2....

Changing climate also means weather - normal and extreme becomes more unpredictable- making more marginal places to inhabit even more marginal.

Upsides..? Well it's capitalism, so for every loser there will be someone winning...

[Johnny Brown]

I'd be interested to hear some theories about the benefits of climate change, there must be some

It might not be a problem if we could all go to the moon for a few generations and reallocate the land when things have stabilised. But what will happen is a redistribution of climatic zones, most of which are inhabited. Many will have to adjust; many others will simply have to move. That is not likely to go smoothly...

[petejh]

Most of that's the current common knowledge (and I'm not disagreeing with it). But I find it hard to believe there won't be some unexpected upsides (or expected, by a few smart opportunists) .

For instance -

Changing climate also means weather - normal and extreme becomes more unpredictable- making more marginal places to inhabit even more marginal.

This is what most people focus on, naturally, but it suggests that there could also be areas that currently have a 'marginal' climate for habitation which could become more amenable to habitation.

Wasn't much of Canada tundra? (most still is).

Upsides..? Well it's capitalism, so for every loser there will be someone winning...

No doubt.

What I wonder is if we'll ever reach a point, hundreds of years from now, where the most advanced nations have engineered themselves - via synthetic foods and all sorts of crazy shit - into such a resilient existence independent of the 'old concerns' of the natural environment that looking after the natural world doesn't matter, or even enter people's minds. Except perhaps for a few lucky/unlucky tribes left out in the cold living from the land.

[Oldmanmatt]

It's hard to find any benefits of sea level rise.

Wine can now be grown very successfully in S Engkand and probably on the chalk in the Yorkshire Wolds in the future.

But for the gains of some places getting warmer - others will get too hot.

Tundra areas are especially vulnerable as the loss of permafrost gives rise to bogs, subsidence - and most worryingly the melting permafrost leads to the release of large volumes of methane. Methane being 4-10 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than co2....

Changing climate also means weather - normal and extreme becomes more unpredictable- making more marginal places to inhabit even more marginal.

Upsides..? Well it's capitalism, so for every loser there will be someone winning...

You forgot the Marine equivalent of the Tundra issue.

The warming oceans will lead to melting of the Methane Clathrates.

Since this " Ice" forms the principle integrity of the slopes of any ocean trench/continental shelf margin; we are inline for massive Methane release from these deposits.
Accompanied by Storegga slides to dwarf the original and Tsunami's of hitherto unimagined scale.

So shall the meek inherit the earth.
And yea, shall joy and laughter follow them all their (very short) lives...

[Oldmanmatt]

Most of that's the current common knowledge (and I'm not disagreeing with it). But I find it hard to believe there won't be some unexpected upsides (or expected, by a few smart opportunists) .

For instance -

Changing climate also means weather - normal and extreme becomes more unpredictable- making more marginal places to inhabit even more marginal.

This is what most people focus on, naturally, but it suggests that there could also be areas that currently have a 'marginal' climate for habitation which could become more amenable to habitation.

Wasn't much of Canada tundra? (most still is).

Upsides..? Well it's capitalism, so for every loser there will be someone winning...

No doubt.

What I wonder is if we'll ever reach a point, hundreds of years from now, where the most advanced nations have engineered themselves - via synthetic foods and all sorts of crazy shit - into such a resilient existence independent of the 'old concerns' of the natural environment that looking after the natural world doesn't matter, or even enter people's minds. Except perhaps for a few lucky/unlucky tribes left out in the cold living from the land.

The problem is the potential (very highly probable) for this to become a run away train of positive feedback.
The rapidity of the change would make any positives extremely short lived and almost certainly too brief to provide much relief for our species.

Tom is far better qualified to answer this than I, or Systema Ian if he's reading.

[petejh]

Mega tsunamis.

Blimey.

Not good for low-lying human populace. Good for creating new wetland habitat? Wildfowl might not even need to fly south.

[Stubbs]

 Pete there was this series of programs of R4, unfortunately now unavailable, which made me feel a bit sick http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ynf5n

This is one of the guys they interviewed   http://www.salon.com/2014/02/01/cashing_in_on_apocalypse_meet_the_people_making_a_killing_on_climate_change/

The Bugle coined the word Catastrotunity which seems quite fitting

[Oldmanmatt]

Yes, it is the speed of change which is the kicker.
The fauna and flora of the Tundra would be decimated and the temperate f and Fl would never naturally colonise it fast enough to beat it's own demise in the formally temperate regions.
Even if it proceeds half as fast as the worst predictions (and currently that's the curve we're on), it will constitute an extinction event of epic proportions and the pace will almost certainly exceed anything Natural Selection could contend with.

So opportunity exist for terraforming entrepreneurs...

[petejh]

Pete there was this series of programs of R4, unfortunately now unavailable, which made me feel a bit sick http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ynf5n

This is one of the guys they interviewed   http://www.salon.com/2014/02/01/cashing_in_on_apocalypse_meet_the_people_making_a_killing_on_climate_change/

The Bugle coined the word Catastrotunity which seems quite fitting

It couldn't be any other way really could it? To be honest I'm ambivalent between feeling saddened at the state of affairs, realistic about the inevitability of it and optimistic about the future and our ability to make the greatest advancements in the worst circumstances. We had to end up where we are or we'd still be in the 18th century. I don't let myself feel too outraged at the implicit suggestion that it's wrong for opportunists to go out looking for possibilities in circumstances beyond anyone's control. You could be out there staking claims in new territories, or sit on the sidelines fretting to no good effect about which species is next to sadly become extinct. You're both equally powerless in the big picture but at least one's being proactive.