[Plantagenet]

A sudden increase in plate subduction rate followed by increased explosive vulcanism all along the ring of fire could result in a substantial period of cooling. As I mentioned one super volcano could result in regional cooling for a considerable time.

I don't think we can count on that kind of thing to happen and save us from global warming.

Eventually we'll have to take steps ourselves to stop the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from growing.

Cheers!

[dohboi]

Well put, P. I mean of course, a huge comet could hit the earth and alter the climate (and much else) in unsuspected ways, but those are quite remote possibilities. Just because you can't predict something 100% (which pretty much you never can), doesn't mean you can't know some things with 99.999...% certainty.

[rockdoc123]

Well put, P. I mean of course, a huge comet could hit the earth and alter the climate (and much else) in unsuspected ways, but those are quite remote possibilities.

we know that at least once the earth was hit by a large meteorite that altered the climate for a very long time. That means the possibility of it happening again are very high. The statistics of the chance of occurrence (once every how many years) are another argument, one that is difficult for mathematicians to put their arms around.

And if you think you understand climate change with 99.999% certainty then you really have a problem.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Well put, P. I mean of course, a huge comet could hit the earth and alter the climate (and much else) in unsuspected ways, but those are quite remote possibilities.

we know that at least once the earth was hit by a large meteorite that altered the climate for a very long time. That means the possibility of it happening again are very high. The statistics of the chance of occurrence (once every how many years) are another argument, one that is difficult for mathematicians to put their arms around.

And if you think you understand climate change with 99.999% certainty then you really have a problem.

From what I've read from multiple sources (which could mean it's urban legend), the chances of dying from a large meteor striking earth are roughly the odds of the average person dying from a plane crash.

Which means nonzero, but remote -- during the course of ONE human lifespan. Now, you start to talk over millions of years, or especially tens of millions of years for ANY human lifepans, then eventually those odds of dying from a meteor strike become very ugly indeed.

However, with man made issues like AGW and population overshoot looking hideously dangerous within the span of a couple/few human lifetimes, the meteor strike worries look like rounding errors.

[Newfie]

Well this conversation sort of brings us back to the recent M B S nuclear thread debate. A big enough exchange could roughly simulate a super volcano or meteor strike. That we do have in our control and the chances are not high but not negligible.

Not advocating, just pointing out.

[onlooker]

Yes. A wise species would have adopted a precautionary principle to something so extremely destabilizing as CC. Hence, Homo Sapiens are not wise

[dohboi]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ge-709470/

"By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth’s population will be culled...to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes...



A new paper published last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences called “Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene” reached more or less the same conclusion, even if was stated in more general scientific terms (and of course minus any reference to a “culling” of Earth’s population).

The paper, which was widely covered by everyone from USA Today to Al Jazeera, projected a very Lovelock-ian view of our world, arguing that even if we managed to hit the carbon emissions targets set in the Paris Climate Accord, we still might trigger a series of accelerating climate-system feedback loops that would push the climate into a permanent hothouse state, with a warming of four, five or even six degrees Celsius. If that were to happen, the paper argued, “Hothouse Earth is likely to be uncontrollable and dangerous to many, particularly if we transition into it in only a century or two, and it poses severe risks for health, economies, political stability (especially for the most climate vulnerable), and ultimately, the habitability of the planet for humans.”...

[Subjectivist]

Interesting thought game. But consider this: how did folks view the year 2000 in 1918? The world just witnessed the slaughter of WWI especially from huge tech advances in weapons. And remember it wasn’t called WWI back then. It was “the war to end all wars”. Autos and airplanes were the new big exciting techs. One general speculated countries wouldn’t go to war since their civilians could be killed by enemy aircraft. A funny speculation now for survivors at Hiroshima. And then the tens of millions killed by the Spanish flue pandemic. A tad more serious then Ebola, eh?

Now jump back to 1818 and think about what they might have anticipated for the year 1900. Just finished a new war confirming the existence of a new upstart country called the United States of America. The same “united” states that saw 600,000 of their citizens slaughtered trying to remain united less then 50 years later. Slaughtered by their own citizens no less.

If one has a good knowledge of history they could play this game for hours. Given how no one has ever come up with anything close to correctly speculating what the next 80 to 100 years would bring should we expect any better accuracy doing so today? Especially if one considers the rate of change of societies and tech. Granted it’s somewhat subjective but IMHO that delta has been increasing at least over the last 200 to 300 years.

But no harm in anyone here giving it a try today: you won’t be alive in the next 80+ years to face the ridicule of folks at that time. LOL.

I can't guess what current nations will remain nation in 2100, jeeze if you look as recently as 1939 there were a handful of world empires and just about a dozen independent nations and nobody in 1920 would have guessed that there would be 279 independent nations recognized by the 'world government' just a few decades later. We might be a single global world government in fact as well as form in 2100 or we might be 1000 squabbling little city states that are the survivors of a global war or catastrophe. God only know the future, they best we can do is guess based on some fundamental knowledge.

I think the world of 2100 will be considerably warmer than the world of 2020. I think humans will survive and remain much the same as we have been for all of recorded history being cruel to some of our fellows and kind to some others Beyond those basic starting points almost anything could happen. Maybe we will do the Greer/Kunstler thing and return to 18th century lifestyles and practices, maybe on the other extreme we will have fusion powered starships using hyperdrives to explore the galaxy at many times the speed of light. Either result is within the scope of our imagination but niether is an assured outcome.