Peak Oil News and Message Boards

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... heobserver
Interesting from 2004

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

Damn - looks like Bush was right on this one.

Hawkcreek wrote:Damn - looks like Bush was right on this one.

I know 2 who see climate catastrophe around 2020. Cid Yama and Guy Mcpherson

Much like every other 'catastrophe' predicted so far the actual damage has been far less than the potential damage emphasized by the hype artists who want their 15 minutes of fame.

Make no mistake, the world is a dangerous place. That doesn't mean the big users of Coal and Petroleum have any interest in all in slowing down or stopping their consumption of those fuels, and from many reports leaks of Methane from the increase in Natural Gas consumption do even more environmental damage than burning the Coal does.

Instead of obsessing on the no hope scenario we should be focusing on adaptation, survival and possibly even greater success. If I were a billionaire I would be investing in things like property around the Great Lakes and around the shores of Hudson's Bay that will be prime real estate in the post climate flip civilization. The folks who like in Churchill Manitoba have a nice port city, but after the climate flips there will be dozens more as every suitable location for a port will get developed to take advantage of the new world we are bringing into existence.

Tanada wrote:Much like every other 'catastrophe' predicted so far the actual damage has been far less than the potential damage emphasized by the hype artists who want their 15 minutes of fame.

Make no mistake, the world is a dangerous place. That doesn't mean the big users of Coal and Petroleum have any interest in all in slowing down or stopping their consumption of those fuels, and from many reports leaks of Methane from the increase in Natural Gas consumption do even more environmental damage than burning the Coal does.

Instead of obsessing on the no hope scenario we should be focusing on adaptation, survival and possibly even greater success. If I were a billionaire I would be investing in things like property around the Great Lakes and around the shores of Hudson's Bay that will be prime real estate in the post climate flip civilization. The folks who like in Churchill Manitoba have a nice port city, but after the climate flips there will be dozens more as every suitable location for a port will get developed to take advantage of the new world we are bringing into existence.

Yep. The jellyfish trawlers are going to need those nice new ports.

GHung wrote:

Tanada wrote:Much like every other 'catastrophe' predicted so far the actual damage has been far less than the potential damage emphasized by the hype artists who want their 15 minutes of fame.

Make no mistake, the world is a dangerous place. That doesn't mean the big users of Coal and Petroleum have any interest in all in slowing down or stopping their consumption of those fuels, and from many reports leaks of Methane from the increase in Natural Gas consumption do even more environmental damage than burning the Coal does.

Instead of obsessing on the no hope scenario we should be focusing on adaptation, survival and possibly even greater success. If I were a billionaire I would be investing in things like property around the Great Lakes and around the shores of Hudson's Bay that will be prime real estate in the post climate flip civilization. The folks who like in Churchill Manitoba have a nice port city, but after the climate flips there will be dozens more as every suitable location for a port will get developed to take advantage of the new world we are bringing into existence.

Yep. The jellyfish trawlers are going to need those nice new ports.

Where else would you send the Soylant Blue factories?

In seriousness though that is exactly the kind of silly over the top doom scenario that does much more harm than good.

At least two problems with T's scenarios:

Countries and regions are, in fact, transitioning away from coal. UK just had its first coal free day since the 1800, and Western Europe in general is moving swiftly away from it. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ne-thought

Sooo, I would say that it is saying things that are inaccurate on the face of them that is not useful or helpful.

On the other hand, the idea that we can 'adapt' to the coming 6+ C degree above pre-Industrial Rev world is just bizarre and absurd. It appears that some have not taken my and others' advise to read the book Six Degrees by Mark Lynas. (He's a pro-nuker these days, so your type should like him! )

Something I just thought about - if sea level goes up by 10 feet (or some other amount), would that do anything to the level of the Great Lakes?
I think not, but am not sure.

The elevation of the lowest lake, Ontario, is 243 feet (74 meters), so they all seem to be pretty safe from even maximum sea level rise.

Yeah, I was thinking that maybe the flow through the St Laurence seaway would be affected - but that might flood part of the area around the seaway, but not the lakes themselves

I think the degree or type of adaptation we will need is to basically create a totally self sufficient artificial environment. With our knowledge and with the resources available to us, it could be done. Of course not for 7 billion people. None of us see that many people anyway surviving for any length of time on this planet . So, I believe it is feasible. I did peruse some of the book of Lynas and yes 6 degrees rise, means a very inhospitable planet for life. Oh and finally, while that appears probable, I do understand the emphasis of Tanada to at least us on this site not raise our hands in total resignation and just say we are Doomed. I have tried to stay close to the more doomerish scenarios because we must as the adage says hope for the best but prepare for the worse. That does NOT mean we should collectively as a species just give up.

"...self sufficient artificial environment..."

It was tried.

It failed.

...

Actually I was thinking something more like this

dohboi wrote:At least two problems with T's scenarios:

Countries and regions are, in fact, transitioning away from coal. UK just had its first coal free day since the 1800, and Western Europe in general is moving swiftly away from it. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ne-thought

Sooo, I would say that it is saying things that are inaccurate on the face of them that is not useful or helpful.

On the other hand, the idea that we can 'adapt' to the coming 6+ C degree above pre-Industrial Rev world is just bizarre and absurd. It appears that some have not taken my and others' advise to read the book Six Degrees by Mark Lynas. (He's a pro-nuker these days, so your type should like him! )

Actually I have read it. Twice in total plus selected passages repeatedly. Apparently you missed the fact that Mr. Lynas concentrated his attention on those places that are currently heavily populated while my scenario is aimed at portions of the globe that currently have very low population. You science deniers are all alike, instead of looking at the whole picture you narrowly focus in on a scenario you want to believe in.

For about the millionth time, warming in the Arctic will be extreme compared to warming in the tropics, 6C is a GLOBAL average and each region will have massively different scenarios. Alaska is liable to warm as much as 25C about 1850 baseline, but in Alaska that means the climate will go from extremely harsh winters to sub-tropical from 65 degrees north down to 55 degrees north.

As for the fake news that the UK is coal free, a one day stunt burning imported wood pellet biofuels for Earth Day is not the same thing at all as adopting a coal free existence for the UK. It is a PR stunt, nothing more, and the forests that had to be cut down to make it happen should make anyone who loves the environment cringe.

"Mr. Lynas concentrated his attention on those places that are currently heavily populated"

In some passages he does, but not in the whole book. And especially in the last couple chapters he's really talking about global cataclysms. Perhaps we read separate books?

"you science deniers"



Gee, as a "science denier" it was pretty stupid of me to march and rally yesterday along with tens of thousands of others around the world in support of science and against those who especially deny climate science.

Parts of the planet have already approached the wet bulb death temperature of 95 F wbt, so even slight increases in both humidity and temperature will mean that we will start seeing temperratures in these ranges.

But of course it is not just the raw temperatures that will be devastating. It is the ever-more-super storms and super droughts. These will hit ever harder in pretty much all parts of the globe (though one or the other will likely predominate in certain places). This is what Lynas discusses in his final chapters and what you seem to have forgotten or chosen not to mention.

(Note that I have avoided calling you a "science denier" or other such names, since I have been taught by you to try to avoid flinging such epithets around...imagine my surprise, then, to see that very smear dripping from your poisoned pen! )

In some passages he does, but not in the whole book. And especially in the last couple chapters he's really talking about global cataclysms. Perhaps we read separate books?--Yes that is my take too. And Lynas is describing earth scale changes to climatic/homeostasis systems and topography especially in regards to comparing our planet now to how it would likely be with a 6 degrees rise

Dohboi you have a science blind spot just as big as the one you call out many conservatives for. their science blind spot is AGW, yours is Nuclear Power.

The last chapter of 6 degrees is rather sparse on specifics as i recall, it begins with

As we enter a world six degrees warmer than today's, there are few clues as to what really lies in store.

Go back and read through the chapter. He starts out describing the Cretaceous world and he points out the far Arctic and Antarctic were semi-tropical, which is exactly what I said in my scenario. He then goes on to talk about the fact that in the tropics zone sea surface temperatures were above human body temperature (42 C) and the fact that the hydrological cycle was more extreme so that some parts of North America were basically in a Monsoon style climate. Sea levels were 200 meters higher and the world had few high mountains so weather patterns penetrated deep inland compared to what takes place in the current continental arrangement.

Nowhere does he say humans will be extinct, though the implication is a lot of people will die as the climate swings from current to 6 C+ from current. I agree with both those positions. I believe a great many people will die especially if we do nothing to plan and prepare for the changes we can confidently predict.

"Nowhere does he say humans will be extinct"

Wow, where did you get that from?

And how did nukes get into the discussion??

Too many red herrings in this discussion for me to continue.

(Sheesh, I didn't think that I would have to be schooling T on both avoiding calling people names AND trying to stay somewhat on topic in a thread! Oh well. )

Tanada wrote:
Go back and read through the chapter. He starts out describing the Cretaceous world and he points out the far Arctic and Antarctic were semi-tropical, which is exactly what I said in my scenario. He then goes on to talk about the fact that in the tropics zone sea surface temperatures were above human body temperature (42 C) and the fact that the hydrological cycle was more extreme so that some parts of North America were basically in a Monsoon style climate. Sea levels were 200 meters higher and the world had few high mountains so weather patterns penetrated deep inland compared to what takes place in the current continental arrangement.

Nowhere does he say humans will be extinct, though the implication is a lot of people will die as the climate swings from current to 6 C+ from current. I agree with both those positions. I believe a great many people will die especially if we do nothing to plan and prepare for the changes we can confidently predict.

I think it's reasonable to point out that "a great many people will die" is just as bad as human extinction.

dohboi wrote:"Nowhere does he say humans will be extinct"

Wow, where did you get that from?

And how did nukes get into the discussion??

Too many red herrings in this discussion for me to continue.

(Sheesh, I didn't think that I would have to be schooling T on both avoiding calling people names AND trying to stay somewhat on topic in a thread! Oh well. )

Wow once again I am forced to point out to you that dohboi is NOT the center of the universe. You jumped into a conversation between myself and Ghung and tried to use Mark Lynas and his book Six Degrees to refute my statement. YOU not I brought up the fact that Lynas has seen the light and became pro-nuclear in 2010. Before you go around complaining about the words of others you should try and remember the ones you use yourself, don't you think?