This is an apocalypse that would be caused by climate change. However, we're already in the overshoot, and what's missing are:
- Industrial and animal agriculture (the leading drivers of deforestation & biodiversity loss, etc.)
- Dwindling biodiversity (with animal species experiencing a 70% decline in the last 50 years and 1 million species being driven to extinction)
- Droughts (linked to deforestation)
- AMOC collapse
- Zoonotic / plant diseases
The diminished biodiversity could easily lead to significant crop failures.
Preventing the collapse could be relatively straightforward at this point. We're still in a position where action could be taken with relative ease.
However, achieving this would necessitate an immediate shift away from fossil fuels (which is hindered by the financial system's need for continuous growth) and a reform of agriculture.
Additionally, we would need to focus on carbon sequestration in our soils and forests while temperatures are still at levels that allow for this.
We can't wait for technological solutions, as they can't be developed at the scale and within the timeline needed.
> Summer 2024 is going to be bad, worse than anything we’ve ever seen. It will shock the world.
I’ll take the other side of this bet. Would you like to discuss terms?
Note, of course, that we’ll need to solve for the inherently asymmetry of the payoff proposition where if I’m right, I can simply Venmo you your winnings, whereas if you’re right, then there’s a decent chance that all non-barter exchange has ceased or will soon cease.
After reading this, I spent several weeks reading about climate change. I concluded that there is a solution, which was suggested alongside the first well-done climate model: a solar shield. Manabe and Wethereld in 1975 found that a 2% reduction in solar radiation would cancel the effect of a doubling in atmospheric CO2 levels.[0,1] A recent study published in PNAS July 31 this year has found this type of solution can be implemented at lower cost than previously believed.[2]
Atmospheric sulfur dioxide enrichment or cloud brightening are other solutions that are not reversible and therefore are more likely to have unintended consequences. Even if nothing is done, mountaintops are likely to be habitable even at very high levels of warming, which would give humanity a chance at avoiding extinction. Still, none of this should be used to downplay the seriousness of the issue of climate change and the urgency of action. If we wait too long, this brief window where we can effect engineering solutions and transition to a smaller and more sustainable society will close.
Dismissing SRM technology, Prof Joeri Rogelj of Imperial College, London, called it “irresponsible, dangerous and a threat to the manageability” of our survival, saying: “It is not a solution but an extremely dangerous band-aid that covers up the global warming problem without healing it, creating a false and unwarranted sense of climate safety while the core of the problem continues to fester.”
That won't ameliorate the effect of CO2 in ocean acidification or human cognitive function. There's really no substitute for decreasing atmospheric CO2.
That last article indicates that the proposed structure will have to solve the sort of problems that a space elevator would take. We may as well pin our hopes on a pallet of umbrellas launched towards L1.
Has there been any test solar shade hardware launched?
It's easy to conclude that the author of the article did their homework well, they should be lauded.
The key questions are:
- Assume 6 degrees increase by 2100. (>10 percent probability) Assume mass famine and displacement of people. What would be the impact on population? 9 percent, 99 percent or 100 percent decrease? In fact there is nothing that could simulate these events. Compare it to covid, the figures went up exponentially and there was no single model that could simulate today's situation, just a few years later.
- What will be the state of technology in 2043? Impossible to predict, let alone in 2100. I believe science and technology is really the key factor determining our future.
- With mass death rates, how will the human genome respond? Quite impossible to predict (crf covid mutations/human immune system adaptation)
It is clear the climate situation is bad and getting worse (cfr covid times). But there is no model that can predict the state of human kind 20 years from now.
One billion death by the end of the century. The study does not hint to a reduction in world population, thought.
>as a rough rule of thumb, burning roughly 1000 tons of fossil carbon (creating 3700 tons of CO2) causes one future premature death. Measuring carbon emissions in human lives not only makes the numbers easier to understand for nonexperts but also clarifies energy policy priorities: clearly, allowing a policy to cause manslaughter is intuitively unacceptable.
The high death tolls that can be attributed to current carbon emissions and that follow from this analysis have immediate and direct energy policy implications.
This is horribly depressing, to the point where if we're so doomed in the next 10 years I ask:
- Why do I care what happens?
- Why do I go on living?
- Most importantly, what is the solution, or mitigation, or any level of alternative other than accepting defeat?
It's harsh, but I feel that at this point, if you're not offering _some_ kind of solution to this issue, then what is the answer other than to smile and wave as we descend into this "apocalypse".
I understand this may not be a popular approach, but I have to _believe_ that we can avoid this scenario, because otherwise I lose all motivation to even try. Even if all is doomed, I have to try.
> Most importantly, what is the solution, or mitigation, or any level of alternative other than accepting defeat?
Consume less - as much as practical.
Right now, I'm hearing continuous noise of a busy highway. If you sit right next to it for some time and watch traffic pass by, what do you see?
Lots of cars with only 1 person in it. Loads of vans from building contractors, carpenters, home improvement stores, painters, etc, etc. The DHL's, UPSes, Ikea's & Amazons in this world.
They are driving around because 'you' wanted a new floor layed in the house. Even though the old one's still good (just your taste changed).
Or because 'you' are so attached to your car that bicycle or public transport is out of the question. And carpooling is too much hassle.
Or because 'you' ordered shiny new gadget from online store.
All of that = CO2 emissions. Not some far away factory in China, or some company you've never dealt with somewhere in the logistics chain. Or chemical plant that manufactured the pvc for your new floor.
No... you.
(okay, a few more of you ;-)
Just do less of that. Slow down, use your stuff a bit longer until it's really worn out, buy 2nd hand if possible. And enjoy life.
It's our building, producing & hoarding 'stuff' that's killing us. Not us sitting in backyard & enjoying a good book.
Many of us will survive this apocalypse. Most of us, even if our quality of life suffers. The fact is that you have much more leverage over the carbon economy than you have been exercising, and even if you're not going to work against global calamity, you can at least work to prepare your community to ride it out in relative safety.
We can do it ... but we may have to change ourselves. It seems that the people are not ready. Maybe those are right who say that only massive catastrophe may wake people up. The problem is that there may not be a chance to rebuild after that.
Nobody is at the wheel, and nobody's really solving this. Nothing that has been done so far has made a dent. We're still consuming and polluting more and more, and we're not just driving to the cliff with the pedal to the floor; we're already beyond the ledge.
I'd worry about the violence that will bring, marauders, slavery, etc. That river may run dry. The forest may burn down. That field may be useless in a changed climate or without pollinators. Who knows how it will play out?
Readit News
- Industrial and animal agriculture (the leading drivers of deforestation & biodiversity loss, etc.)
- Dwindling biodiversity (with animal species experiencing a 70% decline in the last 50 years and 1 million species being driven to extinction)
- Droughts (linked to deforestation)
- AMOC collapse
- Zoonotic / plant diseases
The diminished biodiversity could easily lead to significant crop failures.
Preventing the collapse could be relatively straightforward at this point. We're still in a position where action could be taken with relative ease.
However, achieving this would necessitate an immediate shift away from fossil fuels (which is hindered by the financial system's need for continuous growth) and a reform of agriculture.
Additionally, we would need to focus on carbon sequestration in our soils and forests while temperatures are still at levels that allow for this.
We can't wait for technological solutions, as they can't be developed at the scale and within the timeline needed.
I’ll take the other side of this bet. Would you like to discuss terms?
Note, of course, that we’ll need to solve for the inherently asymmetry of the payoff proposition where if I’m right, I can simply Venmo you your winnings, whereas if you’re right, then there’s a decent chance that all non-barter exchange has ceased or will soon cease.
Atmospheric sulfur dioxide enrichment or cloud brightening are other solutions that are not reversible and therefore are more likely to have unintended consequences. Even if nothing is done, mountaintops are likely to be habitable even at very high levels of warming, which would give humanity a chance at avoiding extinction. Still, none of this should be used to downplay the seriousness of the issue of climate change and the urgency of action. If we wait too long, this brief window where we can effect engineering solutions and transition to a smaller and more sustainable society will close.
0. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/32/1/1520-04...
1. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/32/11/1520-0...
2. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2307434120
Dismissing SRM technology, Prof Joeri Rogelj of Imperial College, London, called it “irresponsible, dangerous and a threat to the manageability” of our survival, saying: “It is not a solution but an extremely dangerous band-aid that covers up the global warming problem without healing it, creating a false and unwarranted sense of climate safety while the core of the problem continues to fester.”
https://phys.org/news/2023-08-viewpoint-guardrails-geoengine...
Without more research and guardrails, geoengineering is a costly gamble, with potentially harmful results
Has there been any test solar shade hardware launched?
The key questions are:
- Assume 6 degrees increase by 2100. (>10 percent probability) Assume mass famine and displacement of people. What would be the impact on population? 9 percent, 99 percent or 100 percent decrease? In fact there is nothing that could simulate these events. Compare it to covid, the figures went up exponentially and there was no single model that could simulate today's situation, just a few years later.
- What will be the state of technology in 2043? Impossible to predict, let alone in 2100. I believe science and technology is really the key factor determining our future.
- With mass death rates, how will the human genome respond? Quite impossible to predict (crf covid mutations/human immune system adaptation)
It is clear the climate situation is bad and getting worse (cfr covid times). But there is no model that can predict the state of human kind 20 years from now.
>as a rough rule of thumb, burning roughly 1000 tons of fossil carbon (creating 3700 tons of CO2) causes one future premature death. Measuring carbon emissions in human lives not only makes the numbers easier to understand for nonexperts but also clarifies energy policy priorities: clearly, allowing a policy to cause manslaughter is intuitively unacceptable. The high death tolls that can be attributed to current carbon emissions and that follow from this analysis have immediate and direct energy policy implications.
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/16/6074
- Why do I care what happens?
- Why do I go on living?
- Most importantly, what is the solution, or mitigation, or any level of alternative other than accepting defeat?
It's harsh, but I feel that at this point, if you're not offering _some_ kind of solution to this issue, then what is the answer other than to smile and wave as we descend into this "apocalypse".
I understand this may not be a popular approach, but I have to _believe_ that we can avoid this scenario, because otherwise I lose all motivation to even try. Even if all is doomed, I have to try.
Consume less - as much as practical.
Right now, I'm hearing continuous noise of a busy highway. If you sit right next to it for some time and watch traffic pass by, what do you see?
Lots of cars with only 1 person in it. Loads of vans from building contractors, carpenters, home improvement stores, painters, etc, etc. The DHL's, UPSes, Ikea's & Amazons in this world.
They are driving around because 'you' wanted a new floor layed in the house. Even though the old one's still good (just your taste changed).
Or because 'you' are so attached to your car that bicycle or public transport is out of the question. And carpooling is too much hassle.
Or because 'you' ordered shiny new gadget from online store.
All of that = CO2 emissions. Not some far away factory in China, or some company you've never dealt with somewhere in the logistics chain. Or chemical plant that manufactured the pvc for your new floor.
No... you.
(okay, a few more of you ;-)
Just do less of that. Slow down, use your stuff a bit longer until it's really worn out, buy 2nd hand if possible. And enjoy life.
It's our building, producing & hoarding 'stuff' that's killing us. Not us sitting in backyard & enjoying a good book.
Deleted Comment