[Lore]

Given human nature, we are much more likely to wait until the door has closed on all other possibilities except geoengineering. Assuming a 50 year timeline, I expect our odds are fairly good.

Which is why I contend we are a failed species in waiting. The geoengineering thing will be just a Hail Mary pass in the end. A last gasp attempt as it were. Producing little to none, or chaotic results.

The whole discussion is rather an exercise in futility since the markers are constantly moving. The milestone of 2100 is only a subjective fixed date. The climate change, which we have set in motion, will swallow that up and continue to move beyond it for many thousands of more years.

I expect it will still be TEOTWAWKI, but as much as a third of the population might survive.

A third of the present world population was about the same number of people on the planet when I was born. As I recall it was pretty crowded even back then.

[PrestonSturges]

A third of the present world population was about the same number of people on the planet when I was born. As I recall it was pretty crowded even back then.

The bulk of the increase has been in the third world, and those countries will be the ones that really get a haircut. Not that the developed countries will be spared.

[Cid_Yama]

Are we indulging in wishful thinking?

Please. The tens of thousands that might inhabit enclosed environments, could potentially survive the next century. Doubt much longer, as conditions progress.

There will be no billions that survived, nor millions, nor hundreds of thousands. And those that survive will not for long. We are done.

[ohanian]

2 degrees Celsius warming is not a fantasy anymore than no gun related homicide in USA for one year is a fantasy. It can be done if there is a political will to do so.

[onlooker]

Ohanian, I do not think you have read all the posts on this topic. The thermal inertia and lag in effects already is locking us in for further warming as the bulk of the CO2 emissions have occurred in the last few decades. Also, the links here are to well researched articles on the false promise of carbon sequestration technologies. All this without taking into account feedback mechanisms which already are demonstrably underway. Finally, if you and others are truthful the world, politicians and people alike wish not and cannot completely disengage from fossil fuels as it provides completely the basis for our modern lifestyles and world economy.

[clif]

Moving the goal posts ....

Well the people in Paris, pretending to do something about the green house gas problem,

humanity created, ..... think it is a fantasy .....

Paris 2015: Carbon promises lock in 2.7 degrees of warming, UN says

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-cl ... kmuw5.html

They have given up on the 2.0 degree fantasy;

moving closer to 3 degrees .......

which, of course, means

the inevitable feedbacks that increase temps from there



but according to the corporate owned MSM they are working on the problem .....

[dohboi]

Well put, ol, clif, and others.

WaPo now has something on this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/nation ... 29/carbon/

The magic number
Holding warming under two degrees Celsius is the goal. But is it still attainable?

Perhaps not the intended meaning, but I read 'magic' in this title as in 'magical thinking.'

Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester in Britain, recently hurled a grenade into the two-degree discussion in an essay in Nature Geoscience by charging that many of his scientific colleagues “are ultimately choosing to censor their own research.”

Anderson particularly objects that many models now rely on “negative emissions” through technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the air or after combustion processes. These technologies, he objects, are at “little more than a conceptual stage of development.”

Oliver Geden, a researcher with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, leveled similar charges earlier this year and has called for modifying the two-degree target, labeling it “patently unrealistic” and “obviously unattainable.” On the scientific front, meanwhile, a recent analysis by Stanford University earth scientist Rob Jackson and three colleagues found “without immediate and substantial mitigation . . . time has nearly run out for 2°C.”

(Should have said, 'even with immediate and substantial mitigation' unless 'mitigation' here means the magical fairy dust of massive carbon sequestration out of the atmosphere.)

[Tanada]

I reiterate, as consequences of Peak Oil and Climate Change arrive more or less together the focus will shift to adaptation and completely dump mitigation themes of behavior. When the children go hungry the parents focus on the very near term, not the consequences 5 or more years down the road. Thus once consequences kick us upside the head and crops start failing or distribution networks start falling apart...

Here is how I see it. The first year that oil production fails to meet demand at $110.00/bbl or the equivalent if we switch currencies everyone will be laser focused on oil ignoring climate. On the other hand if climate change goes through a step change and we get world wide crop failures and widespread famine the focus will be on shifting remaining food around and figuring out what has to be done to successfully grow crops at the new step level. At that point it will take decades of effort to reverse the step up so Climate change will be ignored in favor of adaptation strategies and again it will be burn whatever fossil fuels are necessary to survive the climate shift.
On the Gripping hand we could roll all lemons and and get both calamities working together in feedback loops, Climate Disruption and Peak Oil, the dynamic duo and friends to the end capped of with a regional or even global Nuclear War to really mess things up.

[Newfie]

Tanda,

I would only add that either of these eventualities could easily disrupt the global financial system to destroy trust in trading, thus localizing independent economies. As humanity now works we require free and open global trade to shift resources and calories around to keep all the balls in the air. Let that trust go and trade collapses and then local dependencies will make for a very nasty time.

[Tanada]

Tanda,

I would only add that either of these eventualities could easily disrupt the global financial system to destroy trust in trading, thus localizing independent economies. As humanity now works we require free and open global trade to shift resources and calories around to keep all the balls in the air. Let that trust go and trade collapses and then local dependencies will make for a very nasty time.

A valid possibility, and one that would ensure the burn it all mantra IMO. Picture a collapse of world trade, at that point what motivations would the USA or India have to not burn coal to produce electricity/heat for local consumption? We already burn about a Billion tons of the stuff in the USA, if we can not import oil from overseas we will be more dependent on whatever local fuels we can access than we have been in decades. We would be using coal for every still functional coal burning generator and possibly building more because there would be a shortage of oil heating for many people who would be forced to turn in the short term to electric heat, even if that meant electric blankets or such and electric hot water is standard in homes off the natural gas network.

[Newfie]

Yup,

Living in a temperate climate is a luxury.

[dohboi]

I agree that T's scenarios are the most likely ones.

We would need both widespread, effective and informed people's movements and ideally somewhat more enlightened and effective leadership to avoid them.

Unfortunately, both are in rather short supply.

[ennui2]

I agree that T's scenarios are the most likely ones.

We would need both widespread, effective and informed people's movements and ideally somewhat more enlightened and effective leadership to avoid them.

Unfortunately, both are in rather short supply.

This was what the transition town movement was supposed to do, inoculate the public at a grass-roots level so that when the time comes, they could step up.

I don't think there's any shortage of prescriptions for what we need. None of it's gonna happen without enough buy-in of the public, and it ain't happenin'.

The frog must boil in the pot.

[onlooker]

Yep in ain't happening.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34900474
[size=150]COP21: Public support for tough climate deal 'declines'

[Lore]

The problem is the public's opinion is just as likely to turn on a dime when the next climate change catastrophe hits them. It took Pearl Harbor to wake up the U.S. public and get involved with WWII.

[dohboi]

But what will it take?

In the US, neither any of the recent droughts was enough, nor the heat waves, nor the various extreme weather events, nor Katrina or Sandy...

In Europe, the loss of tens of thousands from one week of extreme heat in the summer of 2003, nor any of the other extreme events has done it...

None of the freak weather and extreme droughts and heat has seemed to have a major effect on those the policies of those who rule the nations in MENA...

What will it take?

[Lore]

Current floods and droughts are not devastating enough to move the needle on public opinion. Least ways, at this point. It's going to take a Cat 5 to roll over Miami or New York City breaking down sea walls and barriers and swamping out these places. Even at that these events would need to come close together along with a few crop failures, heat waves, etc. When it begins to really effect the pocket book and the way a person lives, then the SWHTF.

[Plantagenet]

Why the Paris Climate Deal is worthless

paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-cop21-emissions-china-obama

The treaty that they will be voting on does nothing to stop climate change. Even if every country kept its promises, the IPCC estimates the Paris Treaty will have zero effect on global warming while an analysis at MIT shows that the net result, at best, would be a 0.2°C reduction in global T by the year 2100. In others words---the Paris treaty is completely worthless.


The Paris Climate Deal Obama is boosting is absolutely worthless

[dohboi]

We are officially on track to hit 5 to 6 degrees by the end of this century. The deals being cut in Paris would reduce that to 3 - 3.5.

That's progress, I guess, but kind of like saying, "We aren't going to cut your head off, just all your other appendages."

[Plantagenet]

We are officially on track to hit 5 to 6 degrees by the end of this century. The deals being cut in Paris would reduce that to 3 - 3.5.

Not according to the IPCC. The IPCC says the Paris treaty will have ZERO effect, i.e. we will still hit 5-6° C.

MIT also ran the numbers, and they estimate a T reduction of 0.2°C from the Paris accord, i.e. 4.8-5.8° C by 2100.

Of course those people are just scientists-----I bet if Obama cut their funding a bit and they'd change those numbers to what Obama wants to hear.

AND of course thats also assuming every country meets its voluntary targets. Judging from the way almost every nation failed to keep their targets under the voluntary Kyoto Accord---thats highly unlikely.

CHEERS!