456 replies to this topic

[Mind]

Many of the changes caused by AGW are non-reversible in a societal timescale. Sea-level, damage to ecosystems etc. etc. 

 

I don't think so, considering the pace of technological progress. We will be using the advanced tech of the 21st century  - not the old industrial tech of the 20th century - to clean things up and adapt.

[Lazarus Long]

Ecological collapse is non-reversible, especially when combined with mass extinctions of critical species. It's more like trying to reverse the omelet into eggs.

Bringing back one species assumes an enormous investment and effort. Bringing back an ecosystem is already beyond market capacity, or interest. It's far less costly to stop such destruction than to try and reinvent or replace ecosystems.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 05 January 2021 - 10:11 AM.

[platypus]

I don't think so, considering the pace of technological progress. We will be using the advanced tech of the 21st century  - not the old industrial tech of the 20th century - to clean things up and adapt.

Still, with geoengineering there is no return to past climate due to side-effects. You cannot perfectly cancel out the extra GHGs by injecting something else into the stratosphere. And if there was some magic trick that removed CO2 from the atmosphere, we would need to lower it to under pre-industrial levels if we wanted to make the glaciers and ice caps grow again (to reverse the significant sea-level rise that is already in the pipeline). 

[platypus]

Ecological collapse is non-reversible, especially when combined with mass extinctions of critical species. It's more like trying to reverse the omelet into eggs.

Bringing back one species assumes an enormous investment and effort. Bringing back an ecosystem is already beyond market capacity, or interest. It's far less costly to stop such destruction than to try and reinvent or replace ecosystems.

Exactly, perhaps birds and rodent can cope with warming by moving a few km northward per year on average, but many plants, mosses, fungi etc. can forget it. Evolution is not fast enough to enable whole ecosystems to travel at the required speed. 

[Mind]

Ecological collapse is non-reversible, especially when combined with mass extinctions of critical species. It's more like trying to reverse the omelet into eggs.

Bringing back one species assumes an enormous investment and effort. Bringing back an ecosystem is already beyond market capacity, or interest. It's far less costly to stop such destruction than to try and reinvent or replace ecosystems.

 

The earth has went through several mass extinctions in the past.

 

The earth was almost completely covered in ice at one point

 

The earth was almost completely free of ice at one point.

 

Yet here we are.

 

Every day there are hundreds of new materials/physics/energy breakthroughs - assisted by ever increasing AI capability. https://phys.org/new...amo-effect.html

 

Spraying reflective substances into the air is Cro-Magnon engineering. I am talking about new technology. 

 

I am optimistic.

Edited by Mind, 05 January 2021 - 04:31 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

The faith that many have in technology borders on religion, if not even a belief in magic. I'm not discounting its importance, nor denying its potential, but it is driven by human interests. Like the saying goes: necessity is the mother of invention.

Markets and science drive technological advances. Addressing non-human interest requires a much broader perspective than is driven by human markets. Where's the profit?

Existing markets have an inertia that resists change. Change due to improving efficiency is driven by competitive advantage that is gained by it. Existing markets also have to adapt to external factors such as dwindling resources, and catastrophic stimuli such as pandemic, war, famine, or special events, such as storms, droughts, earthquakes etc.

When we are hit by multiple events simultaneously the stress on markets becomes exponentially greater. We saw an example of this last Spring when supply chains dwindled to a stop and markets contracted, forcing a massive introduction of fiat capital. Some of those critical factors were fixed since then, some were merely postponed.

Ecological collapse is more like a game of Jenga. You can remove critical species slowly, one or even two at time, but once you pass the point of critical instability you rarely recognize the species that triggers the chain reaction. The entire structure (infrastructure for markets) implodes and a cascade collapse occurs.

I mentioned infrastructure because human technological infrastructure depends on a kind of analogue to ecological systems. Society and economies have their own kind of 'ecology', one that is indirectly dependent on environmental ecology. The common currency can be as obvious as the competition for resources, space for habitat, and the food chain, or as subtle as the competition within the cultural petri dish of mutational advantage. Human versus natural selection.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 19 February 2021 - 07:01 PM.

[Mind]

34 new members joined the CCS institute in the last 12 months, including international, banks, industrial heavyweights, energy companies, and even the government of Alberta. Many people dismiss the possibility of taking carbon out of the air, because they think we will only have 20th century technology at our disposal.

 

Other "ecological collapse" predictions over the past 6 or 7 decades (in some cases almost word-for-word what has been written in this thread) have failed spectacularly because the people making the predictions were myopic and could not see the progress around them....just sayin'

[platypus]

34 new members joined the CCS institute in the last 12 months, including international, banks, industrial heavyweights, energy companies, and even the government of Alberta. Many people dismiss the possibility of taking carbon out of the air, because they think we will only have 20th century technology at our disposal.

 

Other "ecological collapse" predictions over the past 6 or 7 decades (in some cases almost word-for-word what has been written in this thread) have failed spectacularly because the people making the predictions were myopic and could not see the progress around them....just sayin'

That looks like technology to captru CO2 at the time of emissions. Nice, but we need technology that captures it straight from free-flowing air. 

 

The ecological situation is dire, what was claimed 6-7 decades ago is irrelevant. 

[Mind]

Geothermal energy solutions advance.

 

MIT engineers propose method for removing CO2 from free-flowing air. Just the tip of the technological iceberg of the 21st century.

 

There are dozens of research reports and news items like this that come out every single day.

 

 

[platypus]

Geothermal energy solutions advance.

 

MIT engineers propose method for removing CO2 from free-flowing air. Just the tip of the technological iceberg of the 21st century.

 

There are dozens of research reports and news items like this that come out every single day.

What year will all of the efforts together make the world carbon-neutral? It needs to happen reasonably soon if nasty tipping points are to be avoided. 

 

I'm a technologist at heart and believe technology will help, but without strong political will shit will hit the fan. Greta is a superhero, hopefully people will demand change. 

[Mind]

"make the world carbon neutral"??

 

I think you mean "human carbon emissions neutral". The atmosphere (naturally) has had waaaay over 1000 ppm and (dangerously) well under 300 ppm in the past.

 

Recent research shows that we could be in a sweet spot for carbon levels right now, maximizing crop yields without much downside.

[platypus]

"make the world carbon neutral"??

 

I think you mean "human carbon emissions neutral". The atmosphere (naturally) has had waaaay over 1000 ppm and (dangerously) well under 300 ppm in the past.

 

Recent research shows that we could be in a sweet spot for carbon levels right now, maximizing crop yields without much downside.

Yes indeed, human emissions carbon neutral or negative. The rate of change in the environment is currently staggeringly fast and way outside any "normal" cange in the past several thousand years. 

 

We are not in a "sweet spot" right now but there's extra warming and sea-level rise "in the pipeline" even if CO2-levels were frozen today, which is impossible. CO2-industry propaganda says otherwise of course, CO2 is the "gas of life" etc. etc. 

Attached Files

•  Erm8Rw8VEAM2Nmj.png   387.41KB   0 downloads
•  proxyzoom.png   191.96KB   0 downloads

[Mind]

We are in the sweet spot for crop production. Read here: https://physicstoday....1063/PT.3.4407

 

It is similar in most of the world as evidenced by record yields in most crops over the course of the past decade.

 

Just because the climate is great for food production right now, does not mean it will stay that way, of course (as pointed out in the article). 

[Lazarus Long]

You're correct Mind, extra food today when they're fewer people doesn't assume more food tomorrow when there are more people.

Our technology is good, but climate rules for many agricultural regions are shifting. Not everything turns to desert, and some regions that have been too cold will enter production, but when does the competition for resources and production overwhelm available land?

When do the demands of humanity exceed the ability to maintain a stable ecosphere?

I believe that we'll be farming the sea in earnest within the next 20 years. It has already begun.

[Mind]

You're correct Mind, extra food today when they're fewer people doesn't assume more food tomorrow when there are more people.

Our technology is good, but climate rules for many agricultural regions are shifting. Not everything turns to desert, and some regions that have been too cold will enter production, but when does the competition for resources and production overwhelm available land?

When do the demands of humanity exceed the ability to maintain a stable ecosphere?

I believe that we'll be farming the sea in earnest within the next 20 years. It has already begun.

 

Or farming in buildings. "Plenty" might have just broken through the economies of scale, when it comes to indoor farming: https://www.plenty.ag/

[Lazarus Long]

Creating vertical greenspace in urban regions is not only critical to supply agricultural product locally, it's an important aspect of healthy social space for urban dwelling. Also good prep for future development of offworld habitat.

[platypus]

The lack of a stable coastline for centuries to millennia will be a major bummer. Trillions worth of infrastructure will have to be abandoned eventually. Invest in scuba-diving stonks 

[Mind]

The lack of a stable coastline for centuries to millennia will be a major bummer. Trillions worth of infrastructure will have to be abandoned eventually. Invest in scuba-diving stonks 

 

 

This is linear thinking. Human interaction with weather and climate is a dynamic process.

 

If (very dangerously) spraying the atmosphere with sun blocking particles becomes a thing in the next few years, then the earth will cool down, the cryosphere will expand, and the oceans will not rise.

 

Dynamic.

[platypus]

The lack of a stable coastline for centuries or longer will be an expensive bummer... not insurmountable but a LOT of people and infrastructure will have to move. 

[Lazarus Long]

The instability of the ice and oceans is already pretty much baked into the cake. There's little chance that efforts to terraform the earth will demonstrate much greater than geologic timing or there's heightened risk of a catastrophic loss of control. An unintended ice age is not a good alternative to our current problems.

The instability of coastlines is why we need to move towards the sea, not away. Artificial archipelagos connecting sculpted tidal planes for aquaculture and coastal shielding. Human habitat made more aquatic. What land area we would be likely to lose could instead be an area of expansion, recovery and sustenance. It's easier to build a coastal region ready to submerge than it is to build it to hold back the tide forever.

The effort would buy our species the time needed to learn how to adapt and mature. Time that off-world colonization won't provide soon enough.

[platypus]

Unless CO2 is removed from the atmosphere quickly I'd estimate 3-5 metres of sea level rise is baked into the cake already. Terraforming by injecting something into the stratosphere might help but it sure as hell won't return us to pre-industrial or current climate. 

[Lazarus Long]

There's a lot of effort being made in sequestration technology, some even creates solid state storage (plastics and building materials), some makes fuels (not particularly an effective strategy, but profitable), and some buries it (ridiculously energy wasteful). Even if all efforts are successful and applied, the likelihood of being able to just get to net zero for anthropogenic generated atmospheric carbon is generations away. The reality is harder, we need to be able to capture more than we create to reverse the trend.

More attention is being given to food production as a cause and may help accelerate progress if current efforts are successful without causing new problems. Using animal feed that has a specific seaweed supplement which mitigates gastric production of both CO2, and perhaps more importantly CH4, is a good starting point. Tank grown meat may also be demonstrated to be able to be net zero for greenhouse gases. The social reticence to either acknowledge there's a problem, or be willing to address it in a truly global effort, is the real challenge.

Also the focus has been on CO2, but little attention has been paid to the cascade effect as we're reaching the tipping point for polar methane being released from the tundra and undersea sources. Methane is many times worse than carbon dioxide.

[platypus]

Why do you say "generations" given that nuclear, wind and solar work today and fusion MIGHT work in less than 30 years (yes, they always used 30 years)? I'm assuming "generations" is ~60 years.

 

Methane was not released from the seabed in early holocene so there's hope it won't happen this time around either given countries cut their emissions severely. Carbon and methane emissions need to be taxed and soon there will be satellites that enable monitoring this from space - if your natural gas line leaks you will need to pay fines.

 

I don't know how well the marine ecosystems will cope with the rapid increase in destructive marine heatwaves, acidification etc. I'm not sure that increased exploitation of the open ocean will solve more problems than it creates. Thumbs up for seaweed and algae though. 

[Lazarus Long]

Development of the coastal plains is not quite the same as open ocean development and is part of a strategy to confront and reverse the effects that are already being felt in regions being most adversely impacted.

The reason I discuss 'generational' change instead of providing a time line is due to a crucial aspect of why this very site exists. The reluctance for societies to optimize development for a future reality, rather than continuing to react to cumulative impacts of past behavior.

I understood this when I tried to warn our group about the risks of 'generational' war when we debated the invasion of Iraq.

I obviously lost the debate, but was proven correct by what is now history. Humans have a habit of planning to fight the last war and are rarely prepared sufficiently for the conflict that comes.

A generation is a subjective measure of time. It is as little as 20 years, but as our species lives longer and longer it may expand to as much as 50. It reflects the evolution of social mindsets, and the intrinsic desire of too many to confront existential crises with denial instead of analysis.

One mitigating factor may be that longevity is allowing more successive generations to simultaneously coexist than ever before in our species' evolution. This alters the time line from one that is socioeconomically linear to one that is more complicated, both parallel and convoluted.

Either way 30 years is an optimistic target defined more about human psychology than environmental reality. A target must be defined in terms that people feel is obtainable, or despair and denial take over and become a self fulfilling negative outcome.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 29 January 2021 - 01:47 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

By the way, the methane has already started emerging. Luckily for us an even worse source is still our own waste, both literally and figuratively.

Increasing efficiency and the marketability of natural gas is rapidly reducing anthropogenic methane.

The improving efficiency of waste management, and the potential for agricultural tech improvement is also allowing us to keep the atmospheric presence of these far more dangerous greenhouse gases in check so far. The caveat is that polar regions appear to be warming at a far greater rate than average.

[platypus]

I'm adding some emission scenarios and methane plots to the discussion. Methane is a good one to target as is does not stay in the atmosphere for centuries, therefore reductions would reduce the temperature forcing rapidly (in decades). 

 

 

Attached Files

•  Global_CO2_emissions_and_probabilistic_temperature_outcomes_of_Paris.png   359.73KB   0 downloads
•  Mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png   134.98KB   0 downloads

[Lazarus Long]

We also already have a lot of technological experience in dealing with methane. Some of the very same industries that will be adversely impacted by the switch away from fossil fuels are best positioned to profit by addressing issues with regard to methane, even the scrubbing of frozen methane hydrate ice which already lies on the deep ocean floor and waiting to evaporate.

https://worldoceanre...thane-hydrates/

Ironically, the methane is less dangerous when used as fuel than as a greenhouse gas. It does however have many more uses than as fuel.

[Mind]

Carbon removal Xprize annouced: https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk

 

Except for the Lunar Xprize, the prize competitions of the last two decades have been very successful.

 

Although, I will re-iterate once again, considering how great things have been climate-wise over the last hundred years (most prosperous time in human history BY FAR), I would want to geo-engineer our way to a stable CO2 level of around 400 ppm in the short term. Once we have a better handle upon the long term non-linear dynamics of the climate system, then we could probably risk something lower or higher.

[platypus]

400ppm might be too much from sea-level and nasty feedback perspective. All the warming that will happen at current CO2-levels has not arrived yet, so we donät know whether the presenty level is "safe" or not. I'm looking forward to the IPCC AR6 WG1 report and what the finding are about climate sensitivity and how long does it take to reach equilibrium after CO2-levels stop changing. 

[Lazarus Long]

More on the threat of methane.

If this is confirmed as a shallow source, it makes accessing it both easy and difficult. Economically it should be accessed in order to reduce expulsion into the atmosphere.

Ironically, it's a significantly less dangerous greenhouse gas as CO2, than methane. However, methane can be used in multiple commercial applications that don't require burning it.

Shallow methane would make drilling for it cheap, but probably would require many, many wells; each with only a modest reserve. Locating the pockets is also relatively simple using ground penetrating radar, geophysical mapping, and satellite data.

Russia, Canada and Greenland probably have the largest amount of this source of methane.

CNN : Mysteries of massive holes forming in Siberian permafrost unlocked by scientists.
http://rss.cnn.com/~...Uaak/index.html

Edited by Lazarus Long, 17 February 2021 - 01:53 PM.