Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: The Crux of Rapid Collapse  (Read 21083 times)

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2369
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 224
Re: The Crux of Rapid Collapse
« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2015, 06:20:09 AM »
Here's one, but I seem to remember another as well...I'll keep looking: https://www.skepticalscience.com/fasullo-trenberth-2012.html

ETA: Ah, here's what I was looking for: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html

"The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide."

Discussed here by Mann and Schmidt: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/a-bit-more-sensitive/
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Spike

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Crux of Rapid Collapse
« Reply #51 on: May 07, 2015, 06:06:50 PM »
Collapse would be a significant negative feedback on emissions, although initially it might spur calls for a final fossil fuel binge to repair the economic damage done and "save lives".

This might be why some deep ecologists occasionally mention it as a potential advantage to Earth, if not human civilization. There was an article by Anders Levermann in the UK press discussing this and arguing that this feedback would effectively prevent the most extreme degrees of warming - 10C plus. To quote:

"It is the unanticipated impacts on fragile infrastructures and supply networks that constitute the largest threat of global warming. While climate change is often considered to be a problem for the global poor and for fragile ecosystems, the impact of extreme events on the global economic network will test the stability of America as much as that of Europe.

No one knows where the limits of our adaptive capacity are, but a path towards 10C of warming will likely challenge these limits. The wall we are speeding towards may be hidden in the fog, but not knowing where it is does not make it vanish. The warnings provided by weather impacts on our society are quite clear. We can either take them seriously and turn around or find out the hard way."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jan/31/climate-change-extreme-weather-earth

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1290
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The Crux of Rapid Collapse
« Reply #52 on: June 16, 2015, 05:07:19 AM »
Interesting to find this article in a farmers magazine. Nature is telling us something, is anybody listening?

http://www.farmers-exchange.net/detailPage.aspx?articleID=14881

Theta

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 173
  • Grips
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Crux of Rapid Collapse
« Reply #53 on: September 01, 2015, 12:06:26 AM »
I haven't seen this article by Gail Tverberg (http://ourfiniteworld.com/2015/08/26/deflationary-collapse-ahead/), so I thought that I would put it up here as it is interesting in terms of how it can have a positive effect on the Climate for the long term (less fossil fuels in the fast collapse described g Gail), but there is also the possibility that the worst case scenario for climate change is a dead certainty and the collapse would, I guess, be a taste for what is to come for the future as things just get worse and worse.

I also want to note that in the comment section, Gail Forecasts a minor gap between the population from now to 2050, with and without Climate Change:

Quote
The forecasts we have with respect to climate change use estimates of fossil fuel availability that are vastly too high, because they do not consider the possibility of near-term collapse. Even their “peak oil” scenario has way too much in it. At the same time, climate is changing right now.
I would take the shape of the LTG forecasts with a grain of salt, because they do not consider the possibility of a financial collapse, and the impact that this would have on the world economy. The LTG forecast looks at the situation from the point of view of an engineer. The model does not consider GDP, or debt, or much of anything else. In fact, the shape of downturns are to some extent based on assumptions similar to Hubbert’s–everything hangs together well, prices stay high enough to encourage extraction, etc.
Given this situation, I think we are basically facing an overshoot and collapse scenario, which is not shown well in the LTG forecasts. This will likely be quite fast, with or without climate change. I am not sure that climate change will make a material difference in the whole scheme of things. For example, in the year 2050, the world might end up with a population of 100 million with climate change, but 125 million without climate change. Percentage-wise, that is a big difference, but does it really matter, if the numbers are tiny, either way?
Can't think of a signature

ccgwebmaster

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Crux of Rapid Collapse
« Reply #54 on: September 01, 2015, 12:39:41 AM »
I also want to note that in the comment section, Gail Forecasts a minor gap between the population from now to 2050, with and without Climate Change:

Quote
Given this situation, I think we are basically facing an overshoot and collapse scenario, which is not shown well in the LTG forecasts. This will likely be quite fast, with or without climate change. I am not sure that climate change will make a material difference in the whole scheme of things. For example, in the year 2050, the world might end up with a population of 100 million with climate change, but 125 million without climate change. Percentage-wise, that is a big difference, but does it really matter, if the numbers are tiny, either way?

I dispute this assertion personally. Climate change makes a big difference. It essentially permanently (for human purposes) alters the planetary biosphere. Collapse alone could do serious and even long term damage, but wouldn't alone so radically alter the habilitability of the planet for us.

As such it is an additional layer on top of collapse alone (and historically many civilisations and societies have collapsed, and humanity has rebuilt) which could substantially exascerbate the effects and retard recovery and rebuilding.

I think one really needs to take the long view - further than 2050 - to see that fully manifested.