[Graeme]

Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return?

Don't look now but we are running in midair, a new book asserts. In 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years (Chelsea Green Publishing), Jorgen Randers of the BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, and one of the original World3 modelers, argues that the second half of the 21st century will bring us near apocalypse in the form of severe global warming. Dennis Meadows, professor emeritus of systems policy at the University of New Hampshire who headed the original M.I.T. team and revisited World3 in 1994 and 2004, has an even darker view. The 1970s program had yielded a variety of scenarios, in some of which humanity manages to control production and population to live within planetary limits (described as Limits to Growth). Meadows contends that the model's sustainable pathways are no longer within reach because humanity has failed to act accordingly.


Graham Turner of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization fears that collapse could come even earlier, but due to peak oil rather than climate change. After comparing the various scenarios generated by World3 against recent data on population, industrial output and other variables, Turner and, separately, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, conclude that the global system is closely following a business-as-usual output curve. In this model run the economy continues to grow as expected until about 2015, but then falters because nonrenewable resources such as oil become ever more expensive to extract.

scientificamerican

[ohanian]

That's sounds exactly like what I said in another post.....

I think we should both look at the problem and look at the solution. Here is the problem.



One line represent the vital resource and the other line represent the human population. What the resource is , is basically immaterial because the human race got itself into a situation where there is no solution.

What that means is that the law of minimum will start to take effect. Whatever vital resource is scarce will constraint the growth of humankind. By growth, I mean growth of anything that humans produce when measured numerically. Sadly there is no solution but that of deprivation. Everything else are just words which basically just are lies, lies, lies.

It states that growth is controlled not by the total amount of resources available, but by the scarcest resource (limiting factor).

[Timo]

Just thinking outloud, here, but i recall reading quite a bit of discussion on the merits of geo-engineering to address precisely this scenario a few years back. On the one hand, engineering the climate, if possible at all, is stupid because the results of employing a technology that has never been used before on a global scale are impossible to predict. The potential for more harm than good is just too great. But, on the other hand, we've already engineeried the climate to the point where if we don't do something to fix it, we're doomed, anyway. So, why not try? In my book, i say go for it. We've already screwed this planet up to the point where the very meaning of the word "natural" is markedly detached from its original definition. More of the SQ is not an option. Ditto for any attempt at getting humanity to wake up and recognize the damage we've already done in hopes of modifying our ways of life to ensure our own survival. We're screwed. At least if we try to geo-engineer the climate, we have a chance at continuation beyond the 21st century.

On a side note, remember the hoopla around the Olympics in Beijing regarding the horrible amounts of air pollution and smog, and the affects of that crud entering the lungs of the athletes as they competed? To present a good image to the rest of the world, The Chinese forbid the use of cars in and around Beijing for a few weeks prior to the Olympics to clear the air. I remember seeing some aerial photos, or maybe even some images shot from space of the before and after effects of that ban on cars there, and the difference was stunning! I remember thinking that it couldn't even be the same city. Anyway, i guess my point in bringing this up is to suggest that the earth has a remarkable ability to "fix" the damages we cause to it. In that sense, hope is not lost. The earth is fully capable of restoring a "natural" balance to the ecosystem if we humans would just stop destroying it.

[Graeme]

Timo, I just spotted this article by MIT. It's quite a coincidence that you were talking about China! If you read the rest of the article, you will see that it is indeed possible but there is also room for some doubt that we will actually reach the desirable target of 2 degrees. Everyone will have to contribute. The authors state that China have already introduced a pilot a cap and trade system.

Report: China’s actions are crucial on climate change

But new research out of MIT shows the importance of all major nations taking part in global efforts to reduce emissions — and in particular, finds China's role to be crucial.

The report — titled "The Role of China in Mitigating Climate Change" — published in the journal Energy Economics, compares the impact of a stringent emissions reduction policy with and without China's participation. It finds that China's actions are "essential."

"As the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, without China, climate goals — like the 2 degrees Celsius target that most agree is necessary to prevent serious irreversible consequences — are out of reach," says Sergey Paltsev, the lead author of the study and the assistant director for economic research at MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

Specifically, the study finds that with China's help the global community is able to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, relative to pre-industrial levels. But without China, we miss that mark by about 1 degree Celsius.


But Tim Yeo, who chairs the United Kingdom Parliament's energy committee, recently told The Financial Times that if China did impose a national cap and trade system, "It's game over for the rest of the world ... Everyone will have to do it, including the U.S."

mit

[JohnRM]

If China imposes cap and trade, why would the US have to? I'd to hear that explained.

[Pops]

But particulates ARE climate engineering, they reflect the UVs and reduce solar gain, same with contrails seeding cloud formation. So if we lower particulates now don't we cook faster?

[Timo]

Pops, not being a studied scientist, climatologist, or anything even close to well educated on the matter, i can only give you my take on your question. Yes, particulates are matter, and yes, matter does reflect UVR, light, and heat back into space. But, that same reflectivity goes both ways. If it reflects outwards, it also reflects inwards, and thus traps heat within the earth's atmosphere. It all boils down to a net gain/loss ratio. We can't seed the earths atmosphere with enough particulates to block more heat than enters around that matter. Hence, it traps that heat in the atmosphere after it reflects off the earth's surface, resulting in a net gain in surface temperature. Make sense?

If only we could develop particulate 2-way mirrors that reflect ths sun's heat back into space, yet also allows the earths reflected heat to escape at the same time. If ever there was a time or argument for geo-engineering.........

[JohnRM]

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-08-07/tech ... _s=PM:TECH

When air travel over North America stopped after the September 11th, 2001 WTC attacks, the temperature increased about 2 degrees, on average, per day.

[Why 137?]

If only we could develop particulate 2-way mirrors that reflect ths sun's heat back into space, yet also allows the earths reflected heat to escape at the same time. If ever there was a time or argument for geo-engineering.....

but it does exist... has for a long time..
the earths atmosphere operates like venetian blinds in fact... they open they close

polaritzation is a wonderful thing...Off topic text deleted.