Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Whatever the consequences of burning fossil fuels, most of us will be gone from this world. What humans accomplish now will help future generations survive - if at all.

With the availability of oil in the economic marketplace, supply and demand will rule the days ahead.

Any change will come very slowly.

Very wise words.

Steve's concerns are quite understandable, but his analysis and conclusions defy reality. Wars and terrorism are as old as organized humanity. They will not end when the age of petroleum is over.

Our understanding of geology atmospheric behavior is fairly priomitive. These involve highly complex, interlocking processes for which human science has no solvable model. It is rather easy to create numerical models of some features of this complex, highly non-linear system, some of which can produce dramatic and, to the uninitiated, convincing images of what will come in the future. The problem is we have no scientific or even mathematical basis on which to demonstrate their validity. The forecasts produce images that look all too real, but do they mean anything? For decades meterorolgists have been able to produce detailed and very real-lookng numerical forecasts of weather patterns months into the future. However experience has taught us that, after just a few daya, the forecasts are completely unreliable - no more accurate than an educated guess based on typical seaconal variations. The reason is the mathematics themselves of these models posess a complex dynamic that is (no surprise) qualitatively similar to the real dynamics of nature, but owing to the sensitive dependence of the result on the initial conditions used to create it (in a word, chaos), the results are meaningless - no more representative of the ensuing reality than a guess.

I'm not suggesting that all this scientific activity involving geological and atmospheric modelling should be discontinued or even ignored. Rather, that we should recognize its results for what they are - interesting possibilities that merit further investigation.

Alternatively we could erase the technological and industrial gains of the last 150 years and return the earth to its former bucolic state. This of course will require the death of about 80% of the world's population - a process that itself involves some interesting features. Unfortunately no one is modelling that process to give us images of what it might be like.

... when our ancestors, no doubt, had this peak flintsone problem to deal with. (To be fair, it's true didn't say coal would get scarce. But his earlier incarnation, William Stanley Jevons, did -- and with very similar arguments. I can't help rubbing this in, sorry.)

thomas : certainly a very thought provoking link .
i enjoy 'looking back' occasionally - or more often than not : "remember when ?" .
currently re-reading a book by philip gibbs : 'england speaks' . it was published in 1935 and gibbs looks both back and ahead . i found his comments about what might happen in germany quite interesting .
he spoke with a german youth in a youth-hostel in england .
here is part of what the young german said (this is 1935 ! and the book is not a reprint) :
"...in germany i found it imposible to be happy . there is a sense of apprehension ... of fear and insecurity .
gibbs : why ?
he smiled and shrugged his shoulders . "i'm not completely arian "
gibbs : jewish ?
"a touch of jewish blood . enough to make things uncomfortable. "

he spoke of life in germany . there was much to be said , he thought , for some aspects of the nazi regime . he approved of labour camps for the unemployed . the nazis had some good ideas . but they exaggerated the discipline , the rigid organization , and suppression of free opinion .
there was an outward unity in germany that seemed astonishing to outsiders , but it wasn't very real , he thought .
there were vast numbers of germans who disliked the nazi regime but didn't dare express their views ...

i do sometimes enjoy looking back . seems there is nothing really new on this earth , it all has happened before , it seems .
hbg

Very interesting link, Thomas. I believe his last two paragraphs offer a telling insight to his state of mind and one that is also common among peak oil and global warming zealots - an almost religious fervor in their single-minded conviction and the rightness of their cause.

How odd and out of place these ideas seem now. And yet they return again in different form.

"What has been will be again; what has been done will be done again, there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1-9.

george quoted ;
""What has been will be again; what has been done will be done again, there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1-9. "
the writer philip gibbs was a devout catholic ; he no doubt knew the quote .
hbg

It appears that human use of petrochemicals roughly during the 20th century played some role in a 1 degree increase in global mean termperature. If the rate at which that human activity which probably caused the temperature change were to be reduced to zero, it seems reasonable to expect the Earth to take another 100 years to recover.

Of course, humans aren't going to suddenly abandon the use of petrochemicals, because there is no way to put the genie back into the bottle. People in China do want to own and operate cheap automobiles. Subsitence farmers in South America have to grow food to feed their families, and the forest be damned. There is no possiblity of any international dictatorship capable of, and willing to force the whole species to go back to 19th century technology. What this means, I think, is that the amount of petrochemicals used will continue, and the rate of depletion of finite reserves will increase. It that is so, then the time to recovery may be several centuries.

Government could begin to adopt alternative energy sources, and that would primarily be increasing the number of nuclear generating plants. One difficulty with that is the problem of preventing nuclear energy by-products being refined into weapons grade municians. Disposal of nuclear wastes will be another problem for a long time. The biggest problem of all may be convincing people that nuclear energy can be produced safely. If we were to begin shifting from petrochemicals to fire our generators today, they still wouldn't be on line for as much as 25 years given past history.

In the meantime, we should expect climate changes that have potential for killing off sizable numbers. Even a small variation of the monsoons in India, or flooding in Northern China, could easily result in several millions dead. In Africa desertification has already produced famine, and there may be much worse to come. Supplus grain from the American mid-west, and from a few other major agricultural producers might reduce the death toll somewhat, but distribution (requiring burning of fossile fuels) is today only a narrow straw. If the U.S. experenced several years of drought, there might be no surpluses to share with the starving of other nations. Something similar to the Dust Bowl is possible, and with similar effects today on the world economy. Imagine for a moment the massive Chinese Army, millions of sex-starved young men with guns, on the brink of starvation. The CCP would probably fall, and the chaos would result in futher millions of deaths. Those neighbors who weren't suffernig famine conditions might get just a teeny bit nervous. My point is that the number and intensity of regional conflicts might become much greater. What money can not buy, may be taken to survive. Not pretty, but terribly real.

I'm afraid that there is nothing that can be done, the Rubicon was passed perhaps 60 years ago. Henry Ford, the Destroyer of Worlds. Oh well.

Just how close might this take us to extinction and a major die-off of species? The Black Death reduced European population by about 30%, and the old feudal system that had remained stable for a thousand years shattered. Surviors inherited the wealth of the dead, individual expectations became more focused on living well as long as possible, and the social order was shaken to the foundations. Inventions and other labor saving devices were suddenly more than toys as labor had become expensive and hard to find. The Rennaisance and Wars of Reformation set the stage for the modern world. How long did it take to recover? It depends a lot on what dates one chooses to designate the beginning of the end and recovery. Lets say from the mid-15th century until the early 18th century, about 250 years. The world didn't end, but it was profoundly changed.

I expect similar changes if our perceptions of global warming are reasonably correct. The accumlated effects of flooding, famine, wars/civil chaos, and disease might reduced the human population by 60%, or more over a period of 100-200 years. ln some places (India, China, and under developed nations in the Third World) we might see population reduced by even more. In China alone the number of deaths attributed to climate change (famine, flood, chaos) might be as much as 800 million people. I don't believe the mortality rate would be consistent, but a matter of many peaks and valleys. Most deaths probably would occur during the first half of the event that might last a very long time. As time increases, the survivors will become acclimated to the new conditions and fertility rates may return to those experienced in the industrial countries around the beginning of the 20th century.

Of course, all this is ultimately speculation. If, however, the fundmental variables are correct, global climate changes have the potential to change our world in radical ways.

georgeob1, I've scanned over and read most of the last few pages that I missed while being out of pocket the last few days, and I would like to commend you as having the best understanding and most reasonable assessments and recommendations for the energy problem as it all relates to some possible CO2 problem.

The proposed solutions to this unproven link of fossil fuels to global warming, as presented by tree huggers and other various factions, are often impractical, if not totally unworkable. Aside from whether fossil fuels are causing global warming, which for reasons well explained by Bernard I remain highly skeptical, the future solutions to the energy problem will best be solved by the free market being the best arbitor as to what will be the most efficient, and I suspect the answer will involve a mix of several answers, and as has been pointed out, it will evolve rather than be suddenly enacted overnight.

Even if fossil fuels were part of the cause of a 1 degree warming, has anyone heard of curing the disease but killing the patient? The fixes that would be required to fix this perceived problem is in my view far worse than the problem.

I hate to even make statements like "even if fossil fuels were part of the cause....." as this may seem to imply to some people a capitulation to that viewpoint, but don't worry Bernard, nothing close to that. I only make such statements in an attempt to use "what if" and "worst case" scenarios to demonstrate the folly of the tree huggers and Al Gore types.

From today's The Guardian, page 14:
[A report about Blair's ninth cross-examination by the Commons liaison committee]


Guardian online: I've changed my mind on nuclear power, admits Blair

Independent: PM's change of heart on nuclear power issue

Rubbing what in? That a Victorian futurologist was completely wrong? There is no analogy between coal then and oil now. And you keep demonstrating a fundamental mis understanding of the problem when you (ok half jokingly) refer to Peak Flinstone. Its energy not stones we are talking about. Neolithic man had muscle power. Jevon had coal power. We have coal oil gas nuclear etc, and between them they still add up to an energy shortage in the near future.

George is right that climatology and particularly the interpretation of data is a very complicated subject. Thats why specialists and people with a great deal of expertise get involved. But some things are very simple. CO2 is[/i] a greenhouse gas. There is half as much again[/i] of it in the atmosphere c.f pre industrial times. Global warming is a fact[/i]. Moreover their conclusion that it is anthropogenic is also a simple concept, though clearly beyond the understanding of some here.

One last point. Remind me again why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and why the US has bases all over SW Asia?

Rubbing what in? That a Victorian futurologist was completely wrong? There is no analogy between coal then and oil now. And you keep demonstrating a fundamental mis understanding of the problem when you (ok half jokingly) refer to Peak Flinstone. Its energy not stones we are talking about. Neolithic man had muscle power. Jevon had coal power. We have coal oil gas nuclear etc, and between them they still add up to an energy shortage in the near future.

George is right that climatology and particularly the interpretation of data is a very complicated subject. Thats why specialists and people with a great deal of expertise get involved. But some things are very simple. CO2 is[/i] a greenhouse gas. There is half as much again[/i] of it in the atmosphere c.f pre industrial times. Global warming is a fact[/i]. Moreover their conclusion that it is anthropogenic is also a simple concept, though clearly beyond the understanding of some here.

One last point. Remind me again why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and why the US has bases all over SW Asia?

Um...hegemony?

hegemony eh? thats nearly as big as anthropogenic

steve and thomas

Sorry about your spectator-only status. Yesterday's game was the best I've seen so far...lots of heart out there. But today, we get to watch Zidane again.

Hmm, don't write off the so-called old player to fast!

Certainly best game of the tournament imo..(you sure this isnt off topic? oh well) and ZouZou will hopefully kick some Portuguese butt

Yikes...I forgot to include Walter in my condolences!

Have I been so sarcastic here recently that even my sincere compliments (re Zidane) look like a feint in a dirty knife fight?

God, the man is talented! He's like a quiet poem in the middle of a storm.

Careless love, I suppose.

You made me weep
You made me moan
You made me leave my happy home

1:1