...
I understand where epiphyte is coming from. We are witnessing a major event in the history of Earth evolve rapidly before our eyes. Watching our predictions come true can be exciting and satisfying, but we also know that there is extraordinary risk in our grand experiment.
At times I have been struck with the feeling that we may be on the verge of creating problems that humanity cannot cope with. Assuming we haven't already crossed that line. I don't worry about that 24/7, but rapidly disintegrating Arctic ice can be enough to remind me that this isn't just a physics problem - it's an important piece of our planet's life support system.
You're late.
That feeling, is of 1970s times. It is then we were "on the verge of creating problems that humanity cannot cope with". Now, with 400ppm CO2, thawing methane and
no sign of any decrease (even halting growth!) of man-made CO2 emissions (35+ Gt annually now and growing by some ~1Gt every year last ~decade), our mere existance and infrastructure is already a problem humanity can't cope with. We need to extremely rapidly decrease CO2 output, and we know it; yet we can't do it "extremely rapidly", and we also know it.
We know that if we try really very hard, may be we could stop our CO2 emissions' growth (level it, more or less, despite growing human population of Earth) - without disintegrating much/most of our "business" on the planet. Yet we know that it won't be enough to just stop it - far from. This is exactly "can't cope with", in my book.
In other words, those who spent any large effort to find out where we are - know full well that we're screwed, it's simply that most of such folks do not want to admit it in public for monetary, reputational, political, psychological or other reasons (and combination(s) of). These guys use all sorts of excuses to tell others there are (or "will be" - technofix) ways to make it through. Then, of course, all that false expressed "optimism" picks up the pace and snowballs in media and all sorts of internet talks, newspapers, etc, thus producing many times more humans - including many scientists, surprisingly - who genuinely believe that something could be done to "fix" the CO2 problem (instead of adapting to its grave consequences, long-term - for centuries to come). But in reality, analyzing every darn last seemingly constructive proposition i've found - dozens of them, - through the literature reveals impassable obstacles to practical realization of proposed long-term solutions of CO2 problem.
Basically, it's the same picture again and again: i see some rather serious scientists discussing specific methods, like CO2 sequestration, or like alternative "clean" energy sources, or like nuclear power, etc, - and it seems like "this could work", but then i go to specific papers to find out "how" proposed methods would work - and every time i find out that on required scale, it won't work. Like pumping CO2 underground, which can't be done for both physical (leaks out with time, can't keep it there for more than several decades reliably) and also economical reasons - on any significant (globally) scale; like too small economically viable potential for base-load (continuous, without long dips) power of renewables and/or their unscalability, or even straight danger and resulting ban from use (geo-thermal second generation), like short supply of traditional fuel for nuclear industry - and absense of working nuclear alternative for global scale implementation, etc.
The only practically working things i know about - are some few measures aimed at postponing the inevitable for a short time (years to few decades). Of course, in the same time such measures also have negative impact, in allowing root causes of warming to further amplify, and increase the scale and speed of the warming at a later date.
It is my understanding that even if we all would simply disappear right now, with all our emissions - it is still most likely that after several decades to few centuries, average annual surface temperature would hop up much of the space to the ~6C warmer world - which was the case (~6C higher than pre-industrial) when Earth had ~400ppm CO2 last time (some millions of years ago, literature lists various values for that period, some papers suggest as low as ~360...380ppm, some others 450ppm, etc - and noone doubts it was about +6C back then). Granted, it takes rather long time for the CO2 increase to produce the most of corresponding warming - estimates vary from ~25 to as high as ~80 years, iirc. Some 30...40 years is perhaps most often considered time for that. After that, expected at that stage feedbacks - net positive, as far as we know, - kick in, producing more forcing, and so on to the full +6C some time by year 2150...2200 or so, when Stefan-Boltzman law will ensure the new semi-equilibrium state for "hotball" Earth is reached.
Basically, it is outdated today to think "if" we can avoid devastating global warming. It is time to analyze when it will happen and what we can do about it. Some say, impossible to adapt to it; may be so, but noone knows for sure. And it doesn't mean we shouldn't try, does it.
As for depression, yes, that's a phaze of realization process. Some people get stuck in this phaze permanently, but fortunately, many move on towards more constructive - if grim - states of mind. Hopefully, you won't be stuck in any sort of "we're doomed" state of mind for any long. Unpleasant and not helpful.
I feel that at least some people who read and write about this melting season in particular are indeed well beyond the initial "despressed by discovered facts" state. But they rarely talk about it. Neither do i do it any often. But despite it being mostly off-topic in this particular discussion, i felt the need to write this all down here - not only for Nick, but possibly for other readers who feel like he does.
I hope moderators will forgive me for it. If they will, - it will be with my gratitude.
