Events in New Maximum

[Vice-Regent]

Neil deGrasse Tyson says it might be 'too late' to recover from climate change

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-cnntv/index.html

[the ghost of leroy]

Just now, Vice-Regent said:

Neil deGrasse Tyson says it might be 'too late' to recover from climate change

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-cnntv/index.html

where did he get his degree in climatology from?

[Vice-Regent]

3 minutes ago, cmasty1978 said:

where did he get his degree in climatology from?

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

another thread for Maria ...?

ramped up quick. 

another Cat 5 hitting the islands.     Poor Dominica .

[ORH_wxman]

4 hours ago, cmasty1978 said:

where did he get his degree in climatology from?

I wish he wouldn't spout off about hurricanes themselves though. He sounded like an idiot in the beginning talking about "hurricanes the width of Florida!!"...as if climate change had anything to do with it. 

Once he focused on coastal flooding it sounded way more credible. That's where everyone needs to be focusing in the CC debate...the coastal flooding. It's impossible for deniers to have a good counter on that argument as long as you don't have too many Nikolais claiming 10 meters of SLR by the end of the century. 

[Jonger]

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

I wish he wouldn't spout off about hurricanes themselves though. He sounded like an idiot in the beginning talking about "hurricanes the width of Florida!!"...as if climate change had anything to do with it. 

Once he focused on coastal flooding it sounded way more credible. That's where everyone needs to be focusing in the CC debate...the coastal flooding. It's impossible for deniers to have a good counter on that argument as long as you don't have too many Nikolais claiming 10 meters of SLR by the end of the century. 

I'd be surprised if SLR even hits 18 inches by 2100.

Carbon based fuels are going to be phased out by 2050 at the going rate. I was once mostly worried about China. China now looks to lead the pack in converting to solar and carbon free transportation.

I'd like to see a focus on carbon sequestration and removing plastic from the ocean. That freaks me out.

[csnavywx]

30 minutes ago, Jonger said:

I'd be surprised if SLR even hits 18 inches by 2100.

Carbon based fuels are going to be phased out by 2050 at the going rate. I was once mostly worried about China. China now looks to lead the pack in converting to solar and carbon free transportation.

I'd like to see a focus on carbon sequestration and removing plastic from the ocean. That freaks me out.

Thermal expansion + mountain glaciers alone will get you close to 18". That's something I would treat as an extreme lower bound since it basically assumes zero contribution from ice sheets, which isn't a realistic expectation at this point.

[AfewUniversesBelowNormal]

2 hours ago, Sophisticated Skeptic said:

another thread for Maria ...?

ramped up quick. 

another Cat 5 hitting the islands.     Poor Dominica .

In unfavorable MJO

[Vice-Regent]

3 hours ago, Jonger said:

I'd be surprised if SLR even hits 18 inches by 2100.

Carbon based fuels are going to be phased out by 2050 at the going rate. I was once mostly worried about China. China now looks to lead the pack in converting to solar and carbon free transportation.

I'd like to see a focus on carbon sequestration and removing plastic from the ocean. That freaks me out.

Without said actions SLR will rise in the long-run. No room for the "it's a problem for the grand-children argument". Otherwise, this was a good post. Sadly, phasing out carbon fuels by 2050 is way too late especially if the dive occurs sharply late.

[Vice-Regent]

By rise, we're talking absurd amounts, 70 feet+ SLR by 2250. That's not survivable for civilization. CO2 must be drawndown at an absurd rate to match global annual emissions starting around 2020 to have a chance, albeit a small chance of avoiding a collapse of sorts. There is no chance if sequestration begins after 2025-2030 as the GHG loading becomes too much and we hit tipping points well before 2050.

Before you bring out the Solar Radiation Management and Geo-engineering card. Just remember the ocean will proceed to a canfield ocean state and kill all terrestial life with plumes of Hydrogen Sulfide regardless of what happens with surface temperatures. It's entirely based on O2 concentrations which are rapidly decreasing in the global ocean.

The Canfield Ocean model was proposed by geochemist Donald Canfield to explain the composition of the ocean in the middle to late Proterozoic. His theory has been coined the 'Canfield Ocean' and remains one of the cornerstone theories of ocean oxygen composition during that time.

In a seminal paper published in 1998 in Nature,^[1] Canfield argued that the ocean was anoxic and sulfidic during the time of the Boring Billion, and that those conditions affected the mineral deposition of iron-rich Banded iron formations (BIF). Prior to the Canfield Ocean theory, it was believed that the ocean became oxygenated during the Great Oxygenation Event. The presence of oxygen in the deep ocean made the formation of BIF impossible, which is seen in ocean sediment records.^[2] Conversely, the Canfield Ocean theory postulates that deep ocean water remained anoxic long after the Great Oxidation Event, and he argued that the euxinic conditions in the deep ocean ceased the deposition of BIF in ocean sediments.^[1]

Definition

Euxinic describes anoxic conditions in the presence of H
2S hydrogen sulfide.^[3]Euxinic ocean conditions, a term describing restricted hydrologic circulation that lead to stagnant or anaerobic conditions, are the likely factor leading to sulfidic oceans.^[1]

 

Sadly the situation has gotten so bad that certain groups will be actively plotting to collapse civilization in order to avoid a mass sixth extinction. Since people are not willing to work towards a resolution to the problem. It's out of my control, there is blood on your hands (people born before 1985). It's so extreme, once the big-league events (more so than now?) start happening that ecofascist governments will try to holocaust people off the Earth and/or we will all kill each other off during the mass famines and related natural disasters. A blessing for the Earth but a horrible way to go if you are a member of human civilization. It's hard for me to envision how civilization will be able to keep combusting fossil fuels en-masse after 2050, either by choice or by collapse. That may seem reassuring to the worst offenders, i'm just letting you know there are two options but both involve ending civilization as it currently exists.

Not a good picture, sorry if it seems like a fear-monger of sorts but it's the real deal. Civilization was has been on this path since the 1700s and it's time to come clean. There is a secondary threat from nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. Any climate change caused disaster/war involving these aspects will exterminate all life on the Earth.

 

[Vice-Regent]

 

[Paragon]

15 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

By rise, we're talking absurd amounts, 70 feet+ SLR by 2250. That's not survivable for civilization. CO2 must be drawndown at an absurd rate to match global annual emissions starting around 2020 to have a chance, albeit a small chance of avoiding a collapse of sorts. There is no chance if sequestration begins after 2025-2030 as the GHG loading becomes too much and we hit tipping points well before 2050.

Before you bring out the Solar Radiation Management and Geo-engineering card. Just remember the ocean will proceed to a canfield ocean state and kill all terrestial life with plumes of Hydrogen Sulfide regardless of what happens with surface temperatures. It's entirely based on O2 concentrations which are rapidly decreasing in the global ocean.

The Canfield Ocean model was proposed by geochemist Donald Canfield to explain the composition of the ocean in the middle to late Proterozoic. His theory has been coined the 'Canfield Ocean' and remains one of the cornerstone theories of ocean oxygen composition during that time.

In a seminal paper published in 1998 in Nature,^[1] Canfield argued that the ocean was anoxic and sulfidic during the time of the Boring Billion, and that those conditions affected the mineral deposition of iron-rich Banded iron formations (BIF). Prior to the Canfield Ocean theory, it was believed that the ocean became oxygenated during the Great Oxygenation Event. The presence of oxygen in the deep ocean made the formation of BIF impossible, which is seen in ocean sediment records.^[2] Conversely, the Canfield Ocean theory postulates that deep ocean water remained anoxic long after the Great Oxidation Event, and he argued that the euxinic conditions in the deep ocean ceased the deposition of BIF in ocean sediments.^[1]

Definition

Euxinic describes anoxic conditions in the presence of H
2S hydrogen sulfide.^[3]Euxinic ocean conditions, a term describing restricted hydrologic circulation that lead to stagnant or anaerobic conditions, are the likely factor leading to sulfidic oceans.^[1]

 

Sadly the situation has gotten so bad that certain groups will be actively plotting to collapse civilization in order to avoid a mass sixth extinction. Since people are not willing to work towards a resolution to the problem. It's out of my control, there is blood on your hands (people born before 1985). It's so extreme, once the big-league events (more so than now?) start happening that ecofascist governments will try to holocaust people off the Earth and/or we will all kill each other off during the mass famines and related natural disasters. A blessing for the Earth but a horrible way to go if you are a member of human civilization. It's hard for me to envision how civilization will be able to keep combusting fossil fuels en-masse after 2050, either by choice or by collapse. That may seem reassuring to the worst offenders, i'm just letting you know there are two options but both involve ending civilization as it currently exists.

Not a good picture, sorry if it seems like a fear-monger of sorts but it's the real deal. Civilization was has been on this path since the 1700s and it's time to come clean. There is a secondary threat from nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. Any climate change caused disaster/war involving these aspects will exterminate all life on the Earth.

 

You're reaching the crux of the argument, which is that where the human population of the planet is right now- is unsustainable.  We'll need to have space colonization by 2200 to avoid an ugly fate.

 

[Vice-Regent]

20 minutes ago, Paragon said:

You're reaching the crux of the argument, which is that where the human population of the planet is right now- is unsustainable.  We'll need to have space colonization by 2200 to avoid an ugly fate.

 

A sea level rise of 20 feet is enough to destroy civilization so the time frame is much shorter. It's no surprise Elon Musk and others are investing so much into space travel. I don't subscribe to that model, I believe in the preservation of the Earth indefinitely, within the bounds of its natural states. We won't able to sustain ourselves in space if we haven't learned how to do it on Earth and we don't want to become a parasite species indefinitely. It's better to live in balance with the environment.

[Paragon]

3 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

A sea level rise of 20 feet is enough to destroy civilization so the time frame is much shorter. It's no surprise Elon Musk and others are investing so much into space travel. I don't subscribe to that model, I believe in the preservation of the Earth indefinitely, within the bounds of its natural states. We won't able to sustain ourselves in space if we haven't learned how to do it on Earth and we don't want to become a parasite species indefinitely. It's better to live in balance with the environment.

Sure, I want to have both, but eventually I feel that humanity's future lies in space.  Humanity needs to curb its excesses here and now.  Even the way we farm has some nasty consequences to it, as we'd rather fight nature using chemistry (which we will inevitably lose) vs working with nature via biology.  Farmers are starting to learn their lesson though, as organic farming is much more sustainable because it retains nutrients much better.

 

[Juliancolton]

9 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

A sea level rise of 20 feet is enough to destroy civilization so the time frame is much shorter. It's no surprise Elon Musk and others are investing so much into space travel. I don't subscribe to that model, I believe in the preservation of the Earth indefinitely, within the bounds of its natural states. We won't able to sustain ourselves in space if we haven't learned how to do it on Earth and we don't want to become a parasite species indefinitely. It's better to live in balance with the environment.

If we're a "parasite species" unable to sustain ourselves, why would you want us to stay in the one place where we can destroy millions of other species while we get our affairs in order? There are lots of perfectly sterile, blank-slate worlds in the solar system and beyond.

[Vice-Regent]

10 minutes ago, Juliancolton said:

If we're a "parasite species" unable to sustain ourselves, why would you want us to stay in the one place where we can destroy millions of other species while we get our affairs in order? There are lots of perfectly sterile, blank-slate worlds in the solar system and beyond.

It's simply not possible, the last human would die in a bunker.

[Vice-Regent]

Most fundamental is that relying on fantasy technology like interstellar space travel and magical carbon sequestration that will magically appear in 2040 is a dangerous gamble. The time is now.

[WidreMann]

Space will not be more habitable than Earth for humans on a large scale, certainly not in the next 100 years, and possibly far longer than that. Even if Earth has a great die out and a lot of pollution, anything we could do in space to survive, could also be done here, and more easily, in an environment that is considerably more compatible with human life than what exists in outer space or on other lifeless rocks like Mars.

[Paragon]

10 hours ago, Juliancolton said:

If we're a "parasite species" unable to sustain ourselves, why would you want us to stay in the one place where we can destroy millions of other species while we get our affairs in order? There are lots of perfectly sterile, blank-slate worlds in the solar system and beyond.

Exactly.  Who wouldn't want to explore these beautiful vistas!  Hopefully humankind will survive long enough to be able to do this.  Orion-season is upon us and the wee-hours of the early morning are some of the best times to photograph it, have you gotten to capture it yet this season, JC?  Simulation from Space Engine:

 

[Paragon]

5 hours ago, WidreMann said:

Space will not be more habitable than Earth for humans on a large scale, certainly not in the next 100 years, and possibly far longer than that. Even if Earth has a great die out and a lot of pollution, anything we could do in space to survive, could also be done here, and more easily, in an environment that is considerably more compatible with human life than what exists in outer space or on other lifeless rocks like Mars.

You're right Joel, but expanding out into space may give us access to more resources and that would be important.  Also spreading out would avoid the pitfalls of a large population density (something we're already testing the limits of, with big city pollution and sustainability issues.)

I think we're going to need some massive technology improvements before this becomes achievable though- and involving nanotechnology and AI.  Our organic bodies have certain limits that space would definitely test the boundaries of, unless we're talking about large space colonies that simulate the characteristics of Earth.

 

 

[AfewUniversesBelowNormal]

it's pretty easy to control climate,air... 

[Jonger]

20 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

A sea level rise of 20 feet is enough to destroy civilization so the time frame is much shorter. It's no surprise Elon Musk and others are investing so much into space travel. I don't subscribe to that model, I believe in the preservation of the Earth indefinitely, within the bounds of its natural states. We won't able to sustain ourselves in space if we haven't learned how to do it on Earth and we don't want to become a parasite species indefinitely. It's better to live in balance with the environment.

Humans or no humans... the coastal cities will be under water, there is virtually nothing that will stop it.

We are not in a positive glacial growth era (my term)... the earth would probably need to be at least 1.5C to 2.0C colder to increase glacial mass.

If someone has the exact figures on this, please post them.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

Humans will never be a successful species , until they rid themselves of Religion , anger , jealousy, deception, and money.

Money because money causes jealousy.  (rich vs poor, etc) 

cellphones and the internet will probably need to go too, since they also cause deception and jealousy.  (who are you txting...? etc)

[Vice-Regent]

5 minutes ago, Sophisticated Skeptic said:

Humans will never be a successful species , until they rid themselves of Religion , anger , jealousy, deception, and money.

Money because money causes jealousy.  (rich vs poor, etc) 

cellphones and the internet will probably need to go too, since they also cause deception and jealousy.  (who are you txting...? etc)

Thank you sir, the downfalls of technology are well-known. Unabomber wrote extensively on the problems plagueing industrial civilization. Highly recommended to read his manifesto in full.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

thanks , but i'm a ma'am .

Religious ones crack me up the most.   They go to church every Sunday, while still committing sins daily.   As long as their neighbor or friend say it's "ok" to do  , they continue doing it.   As if their friend is the holy power , telling them their not committing a sin by using their cellphone or looking at porn everyday. 

No wonder religion is fading fast in the U.S.

[Juliancolton]

5 minutes ago, Sophisticated Skeptic said:

thanks , but i'm a ma'am .

Religious ones crack me up the most.   They go to church every Sunday, while still committing sins daily.   As long as their neighbor or friend say it's "ok" to do  , they continue doing it.   As if their friend is the holy power , telling them their not committing a sin by using their cellphone or looking at porn everyday. 

No wonder religion is fading fast in the U.S.

For someone who's so down on religion, you're probably the preachiest poster on the site.

[Juliancolton]

12 hours ago, Paragon said:

Exactly.  Who wouldn't want to explore these beautiful vistas!  Hopefully humankind will survive long enough to be able to do this.  Orion-season is upon us and the wee-hours of the early morning are some of the best times to photograph it, have you gotten to capture it yet this season, JC?  Simulation from Space Engine:

Yeah, that's always a fun region to photograph. The weather has been a little less than stellar (get it?) lately so I haven't done much deep sky imaging in a while. I'm sure it'll be night after night of clear, crisp skies once we get near full moon.

[Paragon]

3 hours ago, Sophisticated Skeptic said:

Humans will never be a successful species , until they rid themselves of Religion , anger , jealousy, deception, and money.

Money because money causes jealousy.  (rich vs poor, etc) 

cellphones and the internet will probably need to go too, since they also cause deception and jealousy.  (who are you txting...? etc)

Sometimes a species can become too successful- that's part of the problem.  Looking throughout world history (I mean "world" not human) the planet seems to have a tipping point, the planet seems to "prefer" biodiversity, as soon as a species becomes too dominant, the forces that led to their dominance also lead to their downfall.  The dinosaurs, for example, were on the downswing, even before the Cretaceous Event happened.

 

[Paragon]

3 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Thank you sir, the downfalls of technology are well-known. Unabomber wrote extensively on the problems plagueing industrial civilization. Highly recommended to read his manifesto in full.

We all know there are downfalls to technology (as well as high population density- which IMO is the real problem and leads to all the other problems).  But technology is something we need and depend upon.  If I had children would I limit their access to social sites?  Sure- I've seen research that social networking can impact developing brains by affecting attention spans.  I'd also limit their access to fast food and soda for similar reasons.

 

[Paragon]

3 hours ago, Juliancolton said:

For someone who's so down on religion, you're probably the preachiest poster on the site.

they just substitute conventional religion with a different form of religion lol.

I'm no fan of religion either, but I also find it comical how some people who are completely opposed to religion still preach to others.