I think a solar flare will end it first
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote: > I think there's a strong chance climate change will end technological > civilization, but I also think the situation is not hopeless, there are > reasonably plausible scenarios I can imagine where we would avoid this > fate. Chris, you mention "disruptive technologies on the energy front" but > if you are talking about major technological innovations I don't think > that's actually necessary, if the political will is there to transition > away from carbon, it's possible to make up the energy with other existing > technologies like solar, wind, and possibly nuclear (though I think that > has the problem of a large time to build each plant). The E.U. has a plan > to get their energy nearly 100% from renewables by 2050, and they're well > on track to meet their Kyoto goal of 20% of their energy from renewables by > 2020 (see http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2013100901_en.htmand > http://www.wwf.eu/?207523/New-policy-can-put-the-EU-on-track-to-reach-100-renewable-energy). > The U.S. could start to follow suit although they're obviously behind--I > think younger generations are more in favor of taking action to cut carbon, > and demographic changes are making the U.S. more liberal overall (sad that > saving the world from climate disaster has become identified as a > specifically "liberal" cause in the U.S., but that's how it is), so there > may be the votes to sign on to a similar plan within the next decade. > > Even if there's more of a global effort to cut carbon soon there's still > the issue that temperature lags behind carbon in the atmosphere, and that > carbon takes a long time to get cycled out...I'm not sure what the latest > projections are for the temperature increase by 2100 if there is a > worldwide drop-off soon, it may still be at a civilization-destroying > level. So my other hope is that technologies to remove carbon from the > atmosphere artificially will be developed alongside emissions cuts--there > are already prototype "artificial trees" which remove carbon 1000 times > faster than real trees, but currently the technology is fairly expensive > (see > http://io9.com/5950271/could-artificial-trees-solve-the-global-warming-crisisand > http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/01/22/reverse-emissions/ for some > links). As with solar and other technologies it's plausible the cost will > go down though. I also hope that as automated manufacturing technologies > develop, we will eventually reach a point where we have something > approaching a self-replicating robot factory, or perhaps just a > sophisticated 3D printer, that can build and assemble all the parts needed > to make another factory/printer, and another etc. At that point I expect > the cost of all goods that could be manufactured by such a factory/printer > would tend to drop pretty dramatically, and having them churn out massive > numbers of carbon-removal devices (along with other helpful things like > solar panels) might not cost much more than the price of the raw materials > and energy that they need to be "fed" with. I don't have much of a sense of > a timescale for how many decades it would take to reach this point of fully > automated self-replicating machines, but I suspect it could be done before > 2100 if civilization doesn't fall apart in the meantime. > > For those of us who favor the multiverse idea, I suppose the stoic > attitude would be to accept that some possible futures from this point will > see civilization being destroyed by climate change, while others will avoid > it, and all we can do is make whatever little contribution we can towards > efforts which increase the proportion of survivors... > > Jesse > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Chris de Morsella > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Will we be around in 100 years? That is an open question. Some will point >> to the fact that we did not blow ourselves up during the cold war, and we >> didn’t, but times change and the planetary resource equations have also >> changes, and dramatically so in some cases. During the cold war both the >> Soviet Union and the USA were for the most part resource rich and energy >> independent. **** >> >> The world has become on one hand more unipolar with a twenty year era of >> American ascendance, but also increasingly multi-polar as well with the >> rise of powers such as China and India and to a lesser extent Brazil. The >> other thing that has changed is that both the USA and Russia are not nearly >> as rich in resources as they once were. No new super mega fields have been >> discovered in Russia and the eastern Siberian mega fields are in depletion >> now. The Russians seem to pin their hopes and dreams on global warming >> melting the polar ice cap and them seizing control of hypothetical super >> mega fields that some think may exist in that basin. **** >> >> The Americans meanwhile are in full blown bubble fever with the shale >> play – America the new Saudi Arabia and all that glossy PR BS. To see how >> unsustainable this boom is one only has to look at the depletion rates of >> drilled wells. Fracking will open up a flow of gas and in shale oil bearing >> rock an oil like tar that can be made to flow if sweated out of the rock >> with a witches brew of chemicals and heat. But it is sucking the water >> tables dry and the wells after only a few years begin to deplete at a rate >> that is much higher than the typical depletion rates of gas and oil wells >> that have been assumed in the costing and financial statements that have >> formed the bases for funding. In order to sustain this boom an ever >> increasing number of well will need to be sunk and the fever pace of >> drilling sustained just in order to stay abreast of the depletion rates.* >> *** >> >> This is not just a matter of return on capital invested, which as the >> impact of rapid depletion on a projects lifetime costing estimates and >> revenue projections etc. begins to fall back down to earth, will be huge, >> but also in terms or EROI (or ERoEI) – or energy returned on energy >> invested. During the 1930s—1960s in the epic supermega fields, such as >> Gawar the EROI was even above 100X in some cases. Now it is down way down >> and as the overall energy costs of say developing the Bakken formations >> becomes apparent as the sector matures it will sink in that the energy >> payback is getting down towards marginality.**** >> >> While I certainly hope we can manage our energy and resource availability >> decline with grace I fear we are more likely to go out instead in some >> existential desperate energy war – and the US military has a strategy in >> place since 1973 called Last Man Standing that I think pretty well sums up >> the kind of strategic thinking (insanity perhaps) going on in these >> circles. It’s not just the US that is eying the last places on earth that >> have oil (and other strategic resources as well) – as the downward pressure >> of depletion begins to really put the squeeze on the world’s industrial and >> military powers the last remaining places that have oil will become flash >> points of wars that will become central for the survival or not of large >> powers.**** >> >> Look – I am saddened by these thoughts and wish it could be otherwise, >> perhaps it will. I have hope in our better nature, not much though.**** >> >> When millions of people in the former well off areas of the world – in >> the US & Europe & Japan – within decades find their worlds falling down >> around them as energy starvation leads to chronic contraction of the >> economy and a massive social dislocation as people get shed en mass and >> increasingly left to fend for themselves. Imagine the potential for the >> rise of fascist demagogues who fire up masses of angry confused people with >> easy answers and easy enemies (internal and foreign) In times of rapidly >> falling living standards there is upheaval. Now look at the Asian powers… >> at China & India – which cling to a social contract premised on an >> unachievable materialist dream. What happens when hundreds of millions of >> people in these countries realize they, nor their children will ever climb >> out from under grinding poverty and that the future that had been promised >> them will never materialize for them… for the 1% sure, but not for them.* >> *** >> >> I just cannot see happy stable societies thriving in this kind of world. >> I also do not see any disruptive technologies on the energy front that will >> allow us to side step the planets looming fossil energy bottleneck. **** >> >> I hope our world can transition to a lower energy and more resource >> frugal life style versus pedal to the metal straight over the cliff, which >> is our current trajectory, but the momentum of current systems and powerful >> psychological/behavioral drivers in us such as greed, short term thinking. >> **** >> >> -Chris**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *LizR >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:25 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: Is Earth F**ked?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On 31 October 2013 12:13, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:**** >> >> Of course if there are 7 billion people it's more likely there will be >> survivors than if there are only few million. But an asteroid strike could >> easily be big enough to wipe-out all terrestrial life bigger than >> bacteria. We have the concept now, but we don't have any ability to do >> anything about it and we probably still won't fifty years from now.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> But we might in 100 years, or 200, if we continue to advance >> technologically, which still gives us a good chance of averting any >> impending impacts. Whereas if we revert to, say, a Medieval level of >> technology, we'll have no chance whatsoever.**** >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.**** >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
