View Poll Results: GW in 2100

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1.5 degrees C or less

    5 27.78%
  • 2 degrees

    3 16.67%
  • 2.5 degrees

    2 11.11%
  • 3 degrees

    1 5.56%
  • 3.5 degrees

    2 11.11%
  • 4 deg\rees

    2 11.11%
  • 4.5 degrees

    0 0%
  • 5 degrees

    0 0%
  • 5.5 degrees

    1 5.56%
  • 6 degrees or more

    2 11.11%
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 114 of 114

Thread: Global warming in 2100

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Although wind is not an ideal energy source, smaller wind power generators can be assembled cheaply from readily available materials in poor areas; even from bicycle parts (plans are available on Pinterest and YouTube). Making photovoltaics requires a larger industrial base, technically trained experts, and expense, and must be imported by most developing nations.

    There are many other potential sources of renewable or otherwise sustainable power that are not yet matured or not implemented on such large scales as wind and solar. Some are still experimental. Some are not economically viable, some are of course constrained by political or corporate considerations.
    My prediction is that in another decade, geothermal heat will be seen as the energy supply of the future with significant plant in operation, just as there is easily reached geothermal in play today. The technology needs higher temperature drills and casings but that will be solved. When you drill say 3 Km down you can find supercritical water and hot dry rocks too. There's plenty of heat to go around.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,523
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    My prediction is that in another decade, geothermal heat will be seen as the energy supply of the future with significant plant in operation, just as there is easily reached geothermal in play today. The technology needs higher temperature drills and casings but that will be solved. When you drill say 3 Km down you can find supercritical water and hot dry rocks too. There's plenty of heat to go around.
    My own take is that there's no one "energy supply of the future". The future increasingly seems to require a variety of energy sources to cover a variety of resources, circumstances and conditions. Also, to make full use of these sources will require larger energy storage and distribution infrastructures.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    What I see is that humans have a moral obligation as a species.
    Sheesh. This seems unhelpful. Surely arguments harkening to our enlightened self-interest would suffice?

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,523
    Quote Originally Posted by 7cscb View Post
    Sheesh. This seems unhelpful. Surely arguments harkening to our enlightened self-interest would suffice?
    So far, it hasn't.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by 7cscb View Post
    Sheesh. This seems unhelpful. Surely arguments harkening to our enlightened self-interest would suffice?
    Hmm. OK.

    Well, as somebody who thinks it is in our self-interest to clear-headedly deal with GW, I object to it being reduced to morals or ethics on both sides of the issue.

    cheers,

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,523
    I think in this case our actions will matter more than the motives for those actions.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,523
    on both sides of the issue.
    Scientific evidence, supported by the majority of experts, is one side. What's the other?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Scientific evidence, supported by the majority of experts, is one side. What's the other?
    Very good.

    And given you are right, you need not convince others of your noble intent.

    Is that not how science is taught?

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,004
    Quote Originally Posted by 7cscb View Post
    Hmm. OK.

    Well, as somebody who thinks it is in our self-interest to clear-headedly deal with GW, I object to it being reduced to morals or ethics on both sides of the issue.

    cheers,
    I don't know what you mean by "reduced to morals or ethics", but I'm not sure how one avoids morals or ethics. Let me explain why.

    I'll assume, for the sake of discussion, that we agree that climate change is happening, and that further we agree that humans are solely or largely the cause of it. So, now one wishes a discussion as to what humans should do, or not do about it, particularly the technical aspects of that. What is the goal of this: are we trying to reverse climate change, or limit it, or adopt to it, or not adopt to it? But how did you pick the goal you wish to achieve?

    If your interest is survival of the human race vs. survival of the most species, your goal might be very different. Maybe for human survival the best strategy is to adopt and not try to stop or limit climate change? If the goal is the survival of the maximum number of species, your goal might be to reverse it.

    Even "human survival" is poorly defined. Do you want the greatest number of individuals to survive, or be unharmed, or are you content that just some portion of humans and human civilization survive? To pick an extreme example, maybe one's goal is to personally survive as long as possible, at the greatest level of comfort, and nuts to everything else (I am not even hinting that anyone here has that goal). But each of those choices leads to a different plan, and a different means to achieve that plan.

    I don't know how one doesn't get into morals to make such a decision. I stated my decision; I leave it completely to everyone else to make their own.

    And with that, I'll depart this discussion; I'm just digging a deeper and deeper hole for myself.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,523
    Quote Originally Posted by 7cscb View Post
    Very good.

    And given you are right, you need not convince others of your noble intent.

    Is that not how science is taught?
    What?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    My own take is that there's no one "energy supply of the future". The future increasingly seems to require a variety of energy sources to cover a variety of resources, circumstances and conditions. Also, to make full use of these sources will require larger energy storage and distribution infrastructures.
    Well i assume electricity will dominate for distribution, and geothermal is a constant source rather like nuclear, so large scale storage will not be so necessary. If those technical issues are solved it will be available in every territory. I can see the benefit of wind and sun in many smaller applications but for cities, geothermal is ideal and of course non carbon burning. It does carry some problems like fracking, it might cause tremors.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,523
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Well i assume electricity will dominate for distribution, and geothermal is a constant source rather like nuclear, so large scale storage will not be so necessary. If those technical issues are solved it will be available in every territory. I can see the benefit of wind and sun in many smaller applications but for cities, geothermal is ideal and of course non carbon burning. It does carry some problems like fracking, it might cause tremors.
    Well, we have only just begun to see the long term downsides of fracking, so I'd reserve judgment for now. I tend not to trust in a single "magic bullet" approach.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,023
    Quote Originally Posted by 7cscb View Post
    Sheesh. This seems unhelpful. Surely arguments harkening to our enlightened self-interest would suffice?
    I'm with Swift on this. Maybe it would suffice to just use enlightened self-interest, but in fact empathy is one of our traits as a species and I don't see why there is anything wrong with recognizing the power that we have and the (admittedly self-appointed) responsibility that comes along with it.
    As above, so below

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,523
    In my observation, enlightened self-interest usually comes in a distant second to perceived self-interest. Which may be 180 degrees away from the eventual reality.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I'm with Swift on this. Maybe it would suffice to just use enlightened self-interest, but in fact empathy is one of our traits as a species and I don't see why there is anything wrong with recognizing the power that we have and the (admittedly self-appointed) responsibility that comes along with it.
    Sure. Empathy is one of our traits. But it changes within groups, geographically and over time. Science does not.

    Those who disagree with you insist they empathize more appropriately, also claiming the moral high ground.

    Whoever is right should be able to rely on the science. The pretenders can sell us the morality stuff.

    cheers.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,523
    Deniers also claim to be acting on "enlightened self-interest". So here we are.


    Science is a tool for analyzing information. It does not determine actions any more than a measuring tape determines how you build your house.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    128
    I don't know how anyone else feels, but I do not think this thread is truly about scientific discussion. To me a scientific discussion is about some new discovery about quantum entanglement, happenings at the large hadron collider, biological research, latest scientific papers put forth, etc.. etc.. and the like.

    This thread is just a collective sentiment of humanity bashing and doom and gloom. "We're destroying the planet", "it's too late", "there's no faith in humanity", etc.... the climate version of veganism, peta and greenpeace all rolled into one. Even the "last and final thread about MDR" followed a more scientifically reasonable discussion by all parties. This thread is far more emotionally (and subversively political) involved. No one is denying human caused global warming but the vitriol sentiment on display here seems more focused on putting mankind on trial.

    That's all I will say and will depart this thread.

    PS, I live in Florida and my house is partially solar powered (OUC actually buys electricity from me) but I also drive a 700hp car with 9mpg. I guess that makes me "carbon neutral"?

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,368
    Arctic ice is not disappearing entirely because of humans, but we are certainly helping.


    https://phys.org/news/2018-11-natura...te-arctic.html

    Models show natural swings in the Earth's climate contribute to Arctic sea ice loss

    November 6, 2018 by Anne M Stark, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    Arctic sea ice loss in the last 37 year is not due to humans alone. New research by a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientist and collaborators show that Arctic sea ice loss is enhanced by natural climate fluctuations such as El Niños and La Niñas. With manmade greenhouse gases on top of the natural climate variability, the decrease in sea ice is even more severe than climate models originally estimated. Using a series of climate models, the team used a "fingerprint" method to estimate the impact of natural climate variability. Natural swings in the Earth's climate contribute to about 40 percent to 50 percent of the observed multi-decadal decline in Arctic sea ice.

    actual article in Nature:
    http://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0256-8
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    I don't know...
    If you aren't coming back, little point in responding to this. However, a significant number of people and groups of people DO deny climate change exists, or (if allowing it exists) that humans have anything to do with it. I know, as I know some of these people.

    Better than bashing others and throwing around insults is to offer one's own (informed) take on what is really going on. That makes for better conversation.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,368
    Good news! Climate change means billions more RATS!


    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...105-story.html

    What’s so scary about climate change? The term is not scary — at least not in a visceral, skin-crawling sense. Scientists have shown that the likely 2 degrees of global warming to come this century will be extremely dangerous, but, you know, “2 degrees” is hardly a phrase from nightmares and horror films.

    How about “rat explosion”?

    As the climate warms, rats in New York, Philadelphia and Boston are breeding faster — and experts warn of a population explosion.

    ...while extinctions may inspire a sense of tragedy, it’s the creatures multiplying in outbreaks and infestations that generate horror. As rat expert Bobby Corrigan of Cornell University has told various media outlets, rats have a gestation period of 14 days. The babies can start reproducing after a month. That means that in one year, one pregnant rat can result in 15,000 to 18,000 new rats. Warmer winters will continue to dial up rat fecundity. People in urban areas such as New York and Boston are already noticing a lot more rats, not just in downtown alleyways but even in the posh suburbs.

    Rats are just the beginning. Biologists have calculated that with the expected warming this century of 2 degrees Celsius, populations of dangerous crop-eating insects are likely to explode as temperate areas rise, reducing crop yields by 25 to 50 percent. Similar horrors lurk offshore, where biologists have found that a population explosion of purple sea urchins — “cockroaches of the ocean” — is choking out other denizens of Pacific kelp forests. There’s something deeply troubling about a single species taking over what was a diverse ecosystem.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Roger E. Moore; 2018-Nov-06 at 05:39 PM.
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    <snip>
    Arctic sea ice loss in the last 37 year is not due to humans alone. New research by a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientist and collaborators show that Arctic sea ice loss is enhanced by natural climate fluctuations such as El Niños and La Niñas.
    But there is also at least some evidence that Climate Change is changing El Nino/La Nina, so those probably can't be described as factors independent of climate change.

    LINK

    Scientists know that El Niño contributes to an increase in global temperatures. But do rising global and ocean temperatures, in turn, intensify El Niño?

    The science here is as yet inconclusive. One 2014 study suggests that super El Niño events could double in the future due to climate change. Using 20 climate models to examine possible changes in El Niño over the next 100 years, the scientists projected that extreme El Niño events could occur roughly every 10 years instead of every 20.
    LINK 2

    New research published by ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science investigators in Geophysical Research Letters, finds global warming could cause a 20% increase in the areas impacted by temperatures changes and extremes during ENSO events and a 10% increase in the areas impacted by precipitation changes during ENSO events.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,134
    Map from recent paper on Anthropocene Trajectories of expected major global changes and their interactions, showing theorised interactions between tipping points expected this century under business as usual, illustrating ENSO links with other likely factors including polar ice, Amazon rainforest collapse and changes to thermohaline circulation.

    https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/pres...arth201d-state

    Image: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/kontakt/p...e-anthropocene

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,368
    Mass extinction in the oceans from climate change? Warming trends might produce oxygen-poor dead zones.


    https://phys.org/news/2018-11-volcan...ns-oceans.html

    Volcanic eruptions once caused mass extinctions in the oceans – could climate change do the same?

    November 13, 2018 by Jeremy D. Owens And Theodore Them, The Conversation

    All animals, whether they live on land or in the water, require oxygen to breathe. But today the world's oceans are losing oxygen, due to a combination of rising temperatures and changing ocean currents. Both factors are driven by human-induced climate change. This process has the potential to disrupt marine food chains. We already know that large hypoxic, or low-oxygen, zones can be deadly. If hypoxia expands in both size and duration, it is possible to cause widespread extinction of marine life, which has happened previously in Earth's history.

    We investigate natural, ancient changes in ocean oxygenation and the biological effects as a way of understanding the natural response to potential future climate scenarios. In a recent study, we examined links between a major volcanic event that occurred millions of years ago and changes in ocean oxygen levels. Like human activities today, this event released massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    We found that this episode appeared to trigger significant oxygen losses in the world's ocean that lasted over one million years. Our research adds to growing evidence that marine oxygen contents are dramatically affected by warming temperatures and other climate-related feedbacks caused by the release of greenhouse gases.

    More information:
    https://phys.org/news/2018-06-volcan...triggered.html
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Tulip View Post
    Map from recent paper on Anthropocene Trajectories of expected major global changes and their interactions, showing theorised interactions between tipping points expected this century under business as usual, illustrating ENSO links with other likely factors including polar ice, Amazon rainforest collapse and changes to thermohaline circulation.

    https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/pres...arth201d-state

    Image: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/kontakt/p...e-anthropocene
    This seems to be some encouraging (less discouraging if one prefers) news. It looks like, though I could be wrong, that the IPCC has recently revised their Dec. 2017 report by increasing the carbon budget by about 5x to 700Gt for the 1.5C to 2C limits.

    "The SR15 estimates of the carbon budgets that will allow us to remain within the 1.5°C and 2°C targets are far larger than those given in AR5 – over five times as high from end 2017 for a 66% probability of not exceeding 1.5°C warming."
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •