Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Consequences => Topic started by: Tom_Mazanec on April 15, 2019, 03:17:55 PM

Title: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 15, 2019, 03:17:55 PM
All AGW projections seem to go to 2100, but this is too far in the future for emotional, as opposed to academic, interest for a lot of people (like me...I am 61 and have no children).
So what do you expect the world to be like in just eleven years? I  am not He Who Must Not Be Named, I do not anticipate human extinction by 2016 (but if you do, let me know), but I imagine it might be different from now.
Let me know what you expect , not what you want.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: 5to10 on April 15, 2019, 03:21:15 PM
Collapse of global civilization by then
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 15, 2019, 04:22:30 PM
Not significantly different from today.  Things are not that different from eleven years ago.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 15, 2019, 04:52:17 PM
Assuming BAU:

     Best case scenario: The world enters another temperature hiatus. In that hiatus the cost of disasters stay at about the same rate as the 2010's. By 2030 civilization is eroded, wars will emerge, population will stop increasing, global GDP will plummet.

     Worst case scenario: the world resumes warming, the Arctic keep shrinking disaster cost keeps increasing. The world as we know it ends. The world population is reduced significantly. Guessing any political state would be foolishness as the world will be so different that no prediction can be made.

Assuming Not BAU:

Disaster rate remains about the same, but humanity fights and increases its adaptation rate, minimizing the loses and turning vulnerabilities into strengths. CO2 is leveled off, the Arctic is protected through geoengineering. A great future awaits as we learn to keep the climate from changing too fast and Fermi's paradox is postponed.

Attachment from :
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/time-series
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 15, 2019, 05:22:19 PM
Odd how Munich Re has a much different graphic.

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-us-catastrophes

2005 was the highest with $250 billion in losses, followed by 2017 ($165B), 1994 ($150), and 1992 ($125B). 
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 15, 2019, 06:06:02 PM
They represent similar data. One is about billion dollar disasters and the other about disasters in general. One ends in 2019 the other one in 2017 and is incomplete. They both make my case.

If disaster stays at the rate of the 2010's the world might just be highly eroded by 2030. That would require a hiatus in warming and a hiatus in ASI loss. 

If warming and/or ASI losses continue then disasters will further increase leading the world to chaos by 2030.

If we fight for survival head on, we can beat it and have a pretty good 2030. If we just hide our heads in the sand we lose our world. Simple.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on April 15, 2019, 06:25:30 PM
Not significantly different from today.  Things are not that different from eleven years ago.


Warning, bloody. (Like the world of 2030.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4NDoteevh0
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on April 15, 2019, 06:28:43 PM
Assuming BAU:

blah blah blah

Assuming Not BAU:

la la blah


I really don't understand how people think that anything we do today is going to change the outcome of things in the next decade!  In terms of preparedness, that may be true (so fair point), BUT emissions in the next decade will have no significant effect on the climate in the next decade.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 15, 2019, 06:58:21 PM
They represent similar data. One is about billion dollar disasters and the other about disasters in general. One ends in 2019 the other one in 2017 and is incomplete. They both make my case.

If disaster stays at the rate of the 2010's the world might just be highly eroded by 2030. That would require a hiatus in warming and a hiatus in ASI loss. 

If warming and/or ASI losses continue then disasters will further increase leading the world to chaos by 2030.

If we fight for survival head on, we can beat it and have a pretty good 2030. If we just hide our heads in the sand we lose our world. Simple.

Not exactly.  Compare 2017 and 1994.  They are way off. 

Also, losses are falling long term.  While the actual dollar amounts may be rising, the losses compared to gdp are not.  Over the past 30 years, the nomimal losses (relative to gdp) have been flat.  If this rate continues, I foresee no chaos.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 15, 2019, 07:26:59 PM
Quote
Not exactly.

Not exactly what? Don't be scared. Drop some knowledge.

Quote
Compare 2017 and 1994.

I gave you 1 graph, there are about 7 or 8 in the link you gave.

What are you comparing to? The one withe the BIG YELLOW WARNING saying "Longer-term trend is for More - Not Fewer - events"?

Quote
They are way off.

The link I gave you is about billion dollar events. The one you gave is about INSURED loss, 2017 is incomplete and it misses 2018 entirely.

Quote
Also, losses are falling long term

Your link says otherwise in big bold letters just in case the 6 graph above it are beyond your comprehension.

Quote
While the actual dollar amounts may be rising, the losses compared to gdp are not.

Relating GDP to disasters cost is very misleading and wrong. Disasters that are paid for actually make the GDP go up, even while there are very real material and valuable losses.

What the information presented in your link says is that insurance is losing the capacity of covering all the disasters. Government is already paying for increased disasters and decreased insurance with debt.

This is not sustainable, specially with cowardly leaders ignoring the danger, leaving everyone exposed, even the military.

Quote
If this rate continues, I foresee no chaos.

How could you foresee anything if you can't even comprehend the information you post. Not that you are not smart. You might be. It is simply that this information scares you so much that you metaphorically crap your pants and your brain literally can't comprehend the danger we are in.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 15, 2019, 07:41:59 PM
Quote

How could you foresee anything if you can't even comprehend the information you post. Not that you are not smart. You might be. It is simply that this information scares you so much that you metaphorically crap your pants and your brain literally can't comprehend the danger we are in.

... and I thought with a sophisticated, scientific site.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 15, 2019, 07:44:55 PM
Quote
... and I thought with a sophisticated, scientific site.

It is. What I told you is the scientific reason why you can't read simple graphs, said in a sophisticated manner.

But go ahead, cry instead of defending your position.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 15, 2019, 07:51:09 PM
Quote

What are you comparing to? The one withe the BIG YELLOW WARNING saying "Longer-term trend is for More - Not Fewer - events"?


Check out the graph showing loss events in the U.S.  The red lines show normalized losses. The 30-year trend is flat.   
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 15, 2019, 08:00:53 PM
Quote
... and I thought with a sophisticated, scientific site.

It is. What I told you is the scientific reason why you can't read simple graphs, said in a sophisticated manner.

But go ahead, cry instead of defending your position.

Funny that you respond in such an uncivilized manner, when presented with data that contradicts your position.  There was nothing "scientific" in your attack.

Perhaps this paper can help you understand, particularly Figure 3.

"Since 1990 the world has seen a decrease in overall and weather-related disaster losses as a proportion of global GDP. This trend has occurred even as disaster losses have increased in absolute terms. The primary factor driving the overall increase in disaster losses is societal, mainly growth in populations and settlements at risk to the consequences of extreme events (IPCC, 2012 IPCC. (2012)."

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/mGHCKVAtnhbZJc4DYBiS/full
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: 5to10 on April 15, 2019, 08:03:34 PM
Quote
... and I thought with a sophisticated, scientific site.

It is. What I told you is the scientific reason why you can't read simple graphs, said in a sophisticated manner.

But go ahead, cry instead of defending your position.

Honestly no point in even bothering with people who can't see the forest through the trees anymore.

Let em be blindsided at this point. Enough of us have spent enough time pleading that we are in for serious shit this decade. Anyone who has genuinely been paying attention, absorbed enough of the available information and not lying to themselves recognizes the imminent danger we are ALL in, regardless of geography. If one important cog goes, so does the rest of the machine, and we're incredibly close to that - plus we're full speed ahead, not slowing down on emissions, nothing. We're absolutely fucked. Further still, if you've been paying attention you KNOW at this point that we're not getting out of this mess - because the vast majority of humanity is on the same page as this other person - "Nothing will be much different in 2030". Okay, enjoy starving, everyone.

If your response to this thread is "Everything will be fine in 2030 with little difference" you're either just plain ignorant and need to learn that you're just utterly fucking wrong at this point so please STFU now and listen to more intelligent/aware individuals than yourself, or you have an agenda here in suppressing the reality - that global collapse is literally on the doorstep with almost literally no actions being taken to prevent it, only actions that will further exacerbate.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 15, 2019, 08:05:03 PM
Even normalized against GDP (huge error because disaster relief increases GDP) the trend is up. This data was gathered in January 2018, meaning that 2017 data was not complete and it completely misses 2018, both things brings the trend even higher.

And again, you are showing insured losses, not net losses. ANd they warn right there that the trend is going UP!

You contradict exactly what you link says. I'm telling you. Your cowardliness blinds you.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Juan C. García on April 15, 2019, 08:12:28 PM
Worst case scenario:
It will happen a blue ocean event (see "Concluding Comments" on 2007 Mark Serreze' presentation).
https://www.agu.org/webcast/fm07/Serreze/index.html (https://www.agu.org/webcast/fm07/Serreze/index.html)

Best case scenario:
We see an increase on the speed of sea level rise, even if we don't have a blue ocean event on 2030. That means that sea level rise will continue to accelerate on the following decades (as of today, I am more concern on sea level rise, than on a blue ocean event).

If we had 4.5 centimeters of sea level rise on the last ten years, in my opinion it is probable to have 8 to 10 centimeters on the following eleven years. And that will mean that we can have 30 centimeters on 2030-50 and 2 or 3 meters for 2000-2100.
https://climate.nasa.gov/ (https://climate.nasa.gov/)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 15, 2019, 08:13:07 PM
Even normalized against GDP (huge error because disaster relief increases GDP) the trend is up. This data was gathered in January 2018, meaning that 2017 data was not complete and it completely misses 2018, both things brings the trend even higher.

And again, you are showing insured losses, not net losses. ANd they warn right there that the trend is going UP!

You contradict exactly what you link says. I'm telling you. Your cowardliness blinds you.

Read more closely, they are overall losses, not just insured.  Even if you add these losses to gdp ( a questionable practice), the metric has not changed over the time period stated.  Once again, you cannot have a civilized discussion, without slinging insults.  What gives?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 15, 2019, 08:26:23 PM
Quote
... and I thought with a sophisticated, scientific site.

It is. What I told you is the scientific reason why you can't read simple graphs, said in a sophisticated manner.

But go ahead, cry instead of defending your position.

Honestly no point in even bothering with people who can't see the forest through the trees anymore.

Let em be blindsided at this point. Enough of us have spent enough time pleading that we are in for serious shit this decade. Anyone who has genuinely been paying attention, absorbed enough of the available information and not lying to themselves recognizes the imminent danger we are ALL in, regardless of geography. If one important cog goes, so does the rest of the machine, and we're incredibly close to that - plus we're full speed ahead, not slowing down on emissions, nothing. We're absolutely fucked. Further still, if you've been paying attention you KNOW at this point that we're not getting out of this mess - because the vast majority of humanity is on the same page as this other person - "Nothing will be much different in 2030". Okay, enjoy starving, everyone.

If your response to this thread is "Everything will be fine in 2030 with little difference" you're either just plain ignorant and need to learn that you're just utterly fucking wrong at this point so please STFU now and listen to more intelligent/aware individuals than yourself, or you have an agenda here in suppressing the reality - that global collapse is literally on the doorstep with almost literally no actions being taken to prevent it, only actions that will further exacerbate.

I see.  Another poster who responds with insults to anyone presenting research and data that contradicts their closely held beliefs. 
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 15, 2019, 08:26:33 PM

Funny that you respond in such an uncivilized manner, when presented with data that contradicts your position. 


I'm being exactly as civilized as lying/blinded people like you deserve. To give you anymore respect when you are lying your ass off is disrespectful to the truth.

Quote
There was nothing "scientific" in your attack.

But there is. Why else would you be so willingly blind about the links you post?


Quote

Perhaps this paper can help you understand, particularly Figure 3.

"Since 1990 the world has seen a decrease in overall and weather-related disaster losses as a proportion of global GDP. This trend has occurred even as disaster losses have increased in absolute terms. The primary factor driving the overall increase in disaster losses is societal, mainly growth in populations and settlements at risk to the consequences of extreme events (IPCC, 2012 IPCC. (2012)."

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/mGHCKVAtnhbZJc4DYBiS/full

Interesting edit. Another cherry pick.  Do you not have other tricks? Let me help you with the full abstract:

Quote
The Sustainable Development Goals indicator framework identifies as an indicator of progress the objective of reducing disaster losses as a proportion of global gross domestic product. This short analysis presents data on this indicator from 1990. In constant 2017 US dollars, both weather-related and non-weather related catastrophe losses have increased, with a 74% increase in the former and 182% increase in the latter since 1990. However, since 1990 both overall and weather/climate losses have decreased as proportion of global GDP, indicating progress with respect to the SDG indicator. Extending this trend into the future will require vigilance to exposure, vulnerability and resilience in the face of uncertainty about the future frequency and magnitude of extreme events.


The bolded statement is what you are trying to say is not happening when it is.

The italics is complete BS. Disasters that are paid for with insurance or government funds result in an increase in the GDP. But that increase in GDP is not the same as the well being of the people. It is is just a monetary abstraction.

For example the GDP of Puerto Rico grew very fast after the storm hit and disaster aid poured in. However, life was very shitty without electricity or running water. To this day the GDP of Puerto Rico is stimulated by disaster relief, but the roads are fucked up, power is tenuous and nature hasn't fully recovered. Many buildings still lie in ruins. It is unlikely it gets better, specially if another hurricane hits, but the GDP doesn't say that.

Now, the GDP growth only happens if disaster is paid for by either insurance or government. Insurance is already pulling back and government is paying with debt increasingly large disasters. 


Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 15, 2019, 08:43:36 PM
Read more closely, they are overall losses, not just insured.


In that particular graph, yes it shows overall losses. But even when adjusted by GDP (VERY WRONG) it has an upwards trend not down as you claim. And when you ignore the BS of adjusting for GDP, the data adjusted for inflation shows a very substantial upward trend. And when you add the missing data of 2017 and the whole year of 2018 the trend goes up again. Judging by how 2019 started the trend is going to rise again.


Quote

Even if you add these losses to gdp ( a questionable practice), the metric has not changed over the time period stated. 

huh?

Quote
Once again, you cannot have a civilized discussion, without slinging insults.  What gives?

I have tried giving you respect and you repay with more lies and misdirection. Believe it or not I'm not insulting you. I'm describing your behavior scientifically. You can't correctly read a graph because you are too scared to do so.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: 5to10 on April 15, 2019, 08:46:47 PM

I see.  Another poster who responds with insults to anyone presenting research and data that contradicts their closely held beliefs.

There comes a point where those of us with inherently more common sense/intuition than others like yourself begin to reflect on the vast number of systems breaking down at once, all "faster than expected", realize the IPCC is overly conservative, realize scientists specialize and are not putting "the big picture" together for us (The IPCC does that but they aren't realistic - we know this for a fact) and thus realize there is a very great possibility this all comes crashing down within years.

Go ahead, cry at me for data and peer review to "prove it" all you want. Whether or not you are satisfied with mine and many others extrapolations has no bearing on what is actually happening out there, in the same way that a total climate change denier has no bearing on it.

You and many others will be blindsided because of your unfortunate, instinctual, and thus inevitable lean towards hubris. Many of us with more keen instincts are trying to warn you, but you just won't have it because of that good ol' hubris cultivated cog dis. Oh well, I tried, it's all I could do after all.

Get used to the phrase "Faster than expected" mi amigo. That shall be the mantra of the coming years.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 15, 2019, 09:14:28 PM
Your claim the the losses increase gdp is just a straw man argument.  The losses amount to less than one half of one percent.  It barely changed gdp.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Alexander555 on April 15, 2019, 09:22:35 PM
I think we are going to see a lot more of this ( african swine fever, mad cow disease, avian influenza...) . If you take this together with the loses we will suffer by the loss of biodivercity. And they can not continue forever to clear more forest the produce more food. https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/6053000/chinese-porkies-over-impact-of-african-swine-fever-exposed/
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 15, 2019, 09:23:20 PM
Quote
Your claim the the losses increase gdp is just a straw man argument.

Losses increase the GDP If and only if insurance or government pay to replace the losses. That is a simple inevitable fact.

Quote
The losses amount to less than one half of one percent.

Sigh. Losses, payout and GDP do not have a one to one to one relationship.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: 5to10 on April 15, 2019, 09:27:16 PM
Quote
Your claim the the losses increase gdp is just a straw man argument.

Losses increase the GDP If and only if insurance or government pay to replace the losses. That is a simple inevitable fact.

Quote
The losses amount to less than one half of one percent.

Sigh. Losses, payout and GDP do not have a one to one to one relationship.

The person you're responding to has a vested interest in obscuring reality. That is feigned ignorance w/ the intention of misleading at its finest they are portraying.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 15, 2019, 09:31:29 PM
As something still of a newbie, was I unwise in starting this thread?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Alexander555 on April 15, 2019, 09:39:06 PM
Or stuff like this (candida auris). With a world that is more connected than ever before. Plenty of people living in poor conditions, polluted air and water...... These are the kind of places and conditions where they will thrive.    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/candida-auris-the-deadly-superbug-fungus-posing-a-serious-global-health-threat/
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Juan C. García on April 15, 2019, 09:48:09 PM
As something still of a newbie, was I unwise in starting this thread?
IMO, it is a good thread.  ;)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 15, 2019, 09:49:36 PM
Quote
Your claim the the losses increase gdp is just a straw man argument.

Losses increase the GDP If and only if insurance or government pay to replace the losses. That is a simple inevitable fact.

Quote
The losses amount to less than one half of one percent.

Sigh. Losses, payout and GDP do not have a one to one to one relationship.

The person you're responding to has a vested interest in obscuring reality. That is feigned ignorance w/ the intention of misleading at its finest they are portraying.

In that case, I will stop responding.  There would be no point trying to change those deliberately posting misinformation.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Niall Dollard on April 15, 2019, 10:11:25 PM
Alas, as of tonight, it seems Parisians will have to live with a radically changed Notre Dame Cathedral.

It's looking doubtful now that it can ever be restored to its former glory. :(
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: 5to10 on April 15, 2019, 10:16:36 PM

In that case, I will stop responding.  There would be no point trying to change those deliberately posting misinformation.

But you are the only one here doing that, as Archimid pointed out multiple times.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 15, 2019, 10:26:29 PM
The flames of this flame war could account for a percentage of observed global warming.  :(
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on April 15, 2019, 10:26:49 PM
As something still of a newbie, was I unwise in starting this thread?
Yes.

There are loads of other threads about the when and how of planetary eco-system collapse.
They often seem to end up bad-tempered.

But what the hell, here is my prediction for 2030.

- We know CO2 ppm will have increased considerably. (That 12 years we had is now 10, as the 2019 increase in CO2 emissions and CO2 ppm that is happening and will happen has stolen two years),
- We know that deforestation will continue apace certainly in the tropical forests of West Africa, South East Asia and South America,
-desertification and decline in soil mass and fertility will continue,
- At best surface air temperatureswill have increased to close to +1.5 degrees, at worst at or above +1.5,
- The 365 day trailing average of Arctic sea ice extent and area will be less than it is now,
- Life in the oceans will continue to decline through over fishing, hypoxia and all the other oxias,
 - there will be geo-engineering field experiments of various forms in operation at considerable scale,
- Water will continue to be often in excess where it is not wanted and often in shortage where it is needed.
etc etc etc....
- For most, but not all, forms of life, the planet will be a place a little / a lot less livable. (delete as applicable).

Billion dollar disasters may well be a minor part of that less livable scenario, even if that is what does and will get the headlines. It is having to walk a long way for a bucketful of dirty water every day for year after year when suffering from endemic malnutrition that makes a place a lot less livable. When even that is gone less livable becomes unlivable. So to my last prediction. A lot more climate refugees within countries and between countries.

And to finish, there is no point in disputing that which I have written . I am right. If you disagree you are merely deluded and demonstrate your total woeful ignorance of the reality of the environmental change that is well underway. Your comments even though as yet unposted are not worthy of reply. For this reason "this is all I am going to say about that".


(This is called getting one's bad-tempered retaliation in first).
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 15, 2019, 10:31:46 PM
Quote
There would be no point trying to change those deliberately posting misinformation.

I disagree, that's why I keep wasting my time replying to you.

As something still of a newbie, was I unwise in starting this thread?

I don't think so. My apologies for the charged language but it is necessary. This person is lying in very nefarious ways. Feel free to examine both links. Please notice that all he does is divert and confuse.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Wherestheice on April 15, 2019, 10:32:08 PM
If humanity continues down the path it’s on rn. In 2030 things will be much worse than now. Collapse of civilization IMO, is most likely by mid century, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was by 2030 either
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on April 16, 2019, 07:26:49 AM
Attachment from :
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/time-series

I don't know what the world in 2030 will look like (and no I'm not a denier, before we start to going down that road), but if I look at your chart I see the following:

Losses
1980: 60 B usd
mid90s: cca 120 B USD
mid00s: cca 140 B USD
nowadays: cca 330 B USD

whereas US GDP:
1980: 2,8 T USD
1995: 7,7 T USD
2005: 13,1 T USD
2018: 19,4 T USD

which gives us losses as percentage of GDP:
1980: 2,1%
90s: 1,6%
00s  1,1%
now: 1,7%

We should also mention that as a billion dollar now buys less than it used to, the number of events rises automatically, so now more events are included in the "big-ticket" (above billion usd) chart, than previously, for example in the 80s a 500 M USD event wouldn't have been included but with inflation it is now an above billion USD item, so it is now included.  Meaning, that as time progresses, the relative to gdp percentages are distorted to the upside relative to the past.

All in all, we can see that losses are quite stable, and even - considering the distortions might be coming down. This doesn't mean they will always be like that, but they have been like that for a good while.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 16, 2019, 12:10:21 PM
 When people try to compare the value of things from the past to the value of things in the present an inflation adjustment has to be made. This is  a common practice used in all fields that compare events of the past with the present or future using monetary value.  The graphs I posted included that adjustment and give you the best representation of the value of the loses from the past relative to the future.

But you imply that we should ignore the inflation adjusted value and concentrate in the GDP. Why?

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Gray-Wolf on April 16, 2019, 12:28:56 PM
It appears to me that a combination of China's rapid industrialization and the negative Naturals across the Pacific ( esp. the interdecadal Pacific Oscillation?) brought us near 30 years of 'pull down' of the rate of change.

In 2014 the I.p.o. flipped positive ( augmenting the AGW signal instead of mitigating it) and China had decided to stop killing its own citizens with poor air quality so the sulphate/particulate loads down wind began reducing.

Had it not been for the 'Super Nino' muddying the waters we would have seen the impact of these changes in driver/pollution but here we are.

I'm sure we are still 'bedding in' the new regime but this past couple of years NW Europe has seen a move toward the climate that we saw in the holocene optimum with H.P. blocking out most of the atlantic lows and giving NW Europe/Scandiwegian climate a tweak to drier, warmer over summer and drier over winter.

If i'm somewhere near the reality then by 2030 this Pattern will be fully bedded in and NW Europe will be dealing with drought conditions punctuated by atmospheric river events flooding prone areas as trailing fronts become slow moving over a narrow band of countries?

Summers will be nice for those near the coasts but increasingly hostile inland and in major cities over the summer.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on April 16, 2019, 01:24:31 PM
When people try to compare the value of things from the past to the value of things in the present an inflation adjustment has to be made. This is  a common practice used in all fields that compare events of the past with the present or future using monetary value.  The graphs I posted included that adjustment and give you the best representation of the value of the loses from the past relative to the future.

But you imply that we should ignore the inflation adjusted value and concentrate in the GDP. Why?

You are partially right. I thought the figures were nominal USD, but they were real USD (already CPI adjusted). Nonetheless, you should always look at costs relative to gdp, since GDP grows faster than inflation, therefore the value of buildings, infrastructure, etc grows faster than inflation meaning that if the same % of them gets lost to flood/fire, etc, its real (CPI-adjusted) value always goes up.

Example:

There is a town with 100 homes. Every year one home gets destroyed by flood. In 1980 one home is worth 100 (CPI adjusted) dollars, and in 2018 it is worth 300 dollars (CPI-adjusted) dollars. You could look at simply the data and see that losses tripled (went from 100 CPI adjusted dollars to 300 CPI adjusted dollars) while in fact nothing changes: one home gets destroyed every year, but that home (+roads, schools, etc) is worth much more in REAL terms. (BTW US GDP almost trpled in REAl terms from 1980 to 2018)

So the correct method is either nominal losses relative to nominal GDP, or real losses relative to real GDP.

Based on your data, the correct relation (real losses to real GDP):

1980 0,9%  mid90s: 1,1% mid00s: 0,9%, 16-17-18:  1,8%
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: dnem on April 16, 2019, 04:10:02 PM
I expect a huge discontinuity in the human experience on the planet, and I think it is likely before 2030, highly likely before 2040 and all but guaranteed before 2050.  At some point in the relatively near future, it will become utterly undeniable that BAU is untenable, that perpetual growth is unsustainable and that the fossil fuels truly need to stay in the ground.  Global financial markets will be unable to adapt to this reality as the entire global monetary system is dependent on structural debt/interest/growth.  This will cause a worldwide financial crisis that will likely dwarf 2008/9.  I am hardly unique in this view (Peak Prosperity, Jeremy Grantham, others).  I have no idea how it will play out, but it has the potential to profoundly destabilize many core functions of society, such as industrial ag, just-in-time delivery, electrical grids, etc.  I would not be surprised if the global hegemony pursues geo-engineering approaches to try and forestall this eventuality. But it's coming.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Bernard on April 16, 2019, 04:56:04 PM
In 2030, I will be 77 or dead. That's about the only thing I can bet with some confidence.
For the rest, all the bets are off, but if I had to bet, I would bet on anything but what's expected.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on April 16, 2019, 05:47:35 PM
Ok, let's be optimistic:

I expect significant investments in renewable energy by 2030 and the phasing out of ALL fossil fuels by 2050. Humanity will also say goodbye to most plastics, and there will be a serious turn towards all things sustainable and the circular economy. Agriculture will move towards regenerative practices and there will be very serious carbon (and other pollutant) taxes everywhere. Politics will move left towards more redistribution and more role of the government in green investments.
The planet will keep warming even after 2050 but it will be managable. By 2100 we will be 3-4 C above baseline; definitely no summer and possibly no/very little winter ice in the Arctic. The UK will be called the Sunny Isles due to persistent high pressure systems during summer, Greenland will be a popular destination as well, and Canada and Russia will become the real breadbaskets of the globe. Africa will unite in a real African Union and by using modern and regenerative practices will be able to feed its population of 3 billion.

Fairy tale? I don't think so. A possible future
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 16, 2019, 05:50:05 PM
dnem, I think you underestimate how long people can convince themselves of what they want to believe. Even when a million Americans a year die of heat stroke, I suspect the deniers will still be going strong.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: dnem on April 16, 2019, 06:41:10 PM
dnem, I think you underestimate how long people can convince themselves of what they want to believe. Even when a million Americans a year die of heat stroke, I suspect the deniers will still be going strong.

Quite possibly. But markets are smarter than deniers, and when the bottom falls out, it's going to fall fast and hard.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: jai mitchell on April 16, 2019, 07:44:11 PM
I expect

effective ice free arctic during a September within the next 5 years
rapid increase in permafrost disassociation
a year by 2030 where the GMST as measured by GISS is 1.7C above pre--industrial (2017 was 1.17C)

to be clear, I am also expecting a rapid decline of anthropogenic aerosols over the next decade as climate mitigation takes hold.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 16, 2019, 08:03:21 PM
Well, I am a short-term pessimist and long-term optimist. I think technology will catch up with the problem eventually.
I created two "Furry" backgrounds for my stories and role-playing. In the Mammaloids (currently being retconned) global warming is a second order issue...maybe a meter or two of sea level rise over the Third Millennium (the first order issue is Humanity fighting, and losing, a series of wars with genetically engineered anthropomorphic animals). In GURPS Aesop the year is 1994 but technology is at World War One levels, so global warming is hardly on the horizon (the anthropomorphic animals are magical in origin).
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: magnamentis on April 16, 2019, 09:00:02 PM
really curious how long it takes for certain hyper-activities to end as mentioned on day 2 of the invasion, seeing that i'm not longer alone.

theoretically i couldn't care less but too much pointless talk under to be found under unread posts is a bit of an annoyance and not hitting the "New" button makes that list only growing and it would lose its usefulness.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Wherestheice on April 16, 2019, 10:16:07 PM
Ok, let's be optimistic:

I expect significant investments in renewable energy by 2030 and the phasing out of ALL fossil fuels by 2050. Humanity will also say goodbye to most plastics, and there will be a serious turn towards all things sustainable and the circular economy. Agriculture will move towards regenerative practices and there will be very serious carbon (and other pollutant) taxes everywhere. Politics will move left towards more redistribution and more role of the government in green investments.
The planet will keep warming even after 2050 but it will be managable. By 2100 we will be 3-4 C above baseline; definitely no summer and possibly no/very little winter ice in the Arctic. The UK will be called the Sunny Isles due to persistent high pressure systems during summer, Greenland will be a popular destination as well, and Canada and Russia will become the real breadbaskets of the globe. Africa will unite in a real African Union and by using modern and regenerative practices will be able to feed its population of 3 billion.

Fairy tale? I don't think so. A possible future

I don’t share the optimistic view here if we’re talking 3-4 C warmer. When the planet gets to those kind of temperatures, it’s gonna be really hard to grow crops and people will have to retreat to the high northern latitudes. Our population is gonna probably be 2 billion<. One major reason is simply that the planets biosphere will not be able to adapt to that kind of change. And I think using the year 2100 is also very optimistic.

But on the other hand I hope your right
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: kassy on April 16, 2019, 11:50:44 PM
Quote
Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things.  Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.

It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them.  It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.

Not a fan of GDP.

Will we still have the barrier reefs by 2030?

Will we still have an Amazon?

With the current rates and ways of logging will we still have forests? (protect old growth, it´s not just timber there is lots of live around there and it needs trees in all parts of their lifecycle to flourish).

In 11 years we might possibly see a storm hit some coastal cities so hard that people change there minds about living in some of those areas.

I am pretty sure we will see crop failures due to droughts, floods etc.

The ice will melt but will it do spectacular enough things to wake people up?

We miss a sense of urgency and i fear the worst for what we have left to safe in 2030...

(No kids myself but my best friends kids will be teenagers by then i sort of dread the story i will have to tell them).
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: be cause on April 17, 2019, 12:34:28 AM
Thank God we're all spiritual beings .. what ever way we f##k the planet we'll keep on rocking :) b.c.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Neven on April 17, 2019, 12:36:43 AM
Well, I am a short-term pessimist and long-term optimist. I think technology will catch up with the problem eventually.
I created two "Furry" backgrounds for my stories and role-playing. In the Mammaloids (currently being retconned) global warming is a second order issue...maybe a meter or two of sea level rise over the Third Millennium (the first order issue is Humanity fighting, and losing, a series of wars with genetically engineered anthropomorphic animals). In GURPS Aesop the year is 1994 but technology is at World War One levels, so global warming is hardly on the horizon (the anthropomorphic animals are magical in origin).

I think you meant to post this in the RHJunior Forum, but accidentally posted it here.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 17, 2019, 04:04:24 AM
Nonetheless, you should always look at costs relative to gdp,

Not true. You should use the best tools for the job at hand. GDP can be used as a normalizer for inflation, but you must understand what the GDP really is before you use it.

Quote
since GDP grows faster than inflation,

Halt right there. GDP may grow faster, slower and even the opposite direction of inflation. GDP and inflation are different phenomena, related in some ways but independent of each other. They do not represent the same thing.

 
Quote
therefore the value of buildings, infrastructure, etc grows faster than inflation meaning that if the same % of them gets lost to flood/fire, etc, its real (CPI-adjusted) value always goes up.

Go ahead and revise your inference. If GDP always went up and always faster than inflation your inference have some validity ( but not in this argument)


Quote
(BTW US GDP almost trpled in REAl terms from 1980 to 2018)

BTW during the 70's inflation went up as GDP went down in the US. Not fun.

Quote
So the correct method is either nominal losses relative to nominal GDP, or real losses relative to real GDP.

42.

The correct method to answer what question?

Have the cost of natural disasters increased?

After adjusting for inflation the answer is very clear. Yes.

If we adjust by GDP, then the answer is also yes, even in the US, who boasts the highest GDP growth in the world. In other parts of the world with high inflation and even negative GDP growth, but with about the same increase in climate disasters, the numbers must be much worse.

Has the increase in natural disasters cost had a negative impact in economic growth indicators in the US?

No. And the GDP would be the correct tool to come to that conclusion. The "negative local growth" increasing disasters cause and real non monetary impact of the disasters are a different topic.

To bring it back on topic, I reiterate my prediction.  If disaster costs (adjusted for inflation) simply stay at the 2010's level (and BAU) by 2030 the world will be much worse than we are now. We might already be past peak humanity.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on April 17, 2019, 04:43:13 AM
2030: Humanity will continue on a BAU trajectory (optimistic: a Green BAU). GHG levels will continue rising more or less along RCP8.5. Tensions will be rising, and more individual countries will join the march to collapse, but civilization itself will still be intact (I expect the global collapse to happen mid-century).
And the ASIF will still be infested with lukewarmists and closeted AGW deniers.

Edit: the 2012 record will be easily broken, and in all probability the first BOE of <1M km2 will have happened already.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bbr2314 on April 17, 2019, 04:57:44 AM
2030

The US / Canada / Australia

*Mostly the same for the largest cities
*Some regions and cities prone to minor catastrophes, with at least two events of Harvey's magnitude or greater occurring by this point
*Increasing populations of homeless individuals + families in the cities
*Business as usual for most

Europe

*Large changes possible in largest cities, minor unrest becoming much more common
*Increasing populations of homeless
*Large influx of refugees from Africa and Asia
*Major political instability, pending or possible collapse of EU, reformation of new political coalitions based on vulnerability to migration quite likely, extremist politics taking national governments by this point

Africa

*Largest cities are 1.5-2X the population of today
*Growing urban populations result in increasing perceived stability, however,
*Growing urban populations also become increasingly vulnerable to DISEASE
*By 2030 Africa will be on the verge of a major population correction

Asia

*Largest cities are 1.5-2X the population of today in developing regions
*China transitions to clean energy but has major social unrest and civil conflict as construction boom ends
*India and Pakistan have full scale conflict, possibly involving nuclear weapons
*Environmental degradation becomes staggering in most tropical regions
*By 2030 Asia will also be almost as due as Africa for a population correction

NET RELATIVE CHANGES

*The US, Canada, and Australia will have the most relative stability due to distance from the largest waves of potential refugees
*Europe is the region of highest income that is most vulnerable to political instability due to large refugee fluxes and faces largest potential relative decline in quality of life for ordinary citizens
*Situation likely to stay unchanged for most urban residents of Earth BUT
*Severe population corrections become increasingly likely in parts of Africa and southern Asia with a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan an event of increasing probability
*Net flow of capital and highest income individuals will favor stability and means to fund stopgap environmental intervention in the US, Canada, Australia, and wealthy areas of eastern Asia (Japan, Taiwan, Singapore)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on April 17, 2019, 07:49:42 AM
This one to Archimid:

Since I have been working with economic statistics for 30+yrs and you do not have a correct understanding of these statistics here is a short primer :

REAL GDP growth is the growth rate of GDP ABOVE inflation. Here is a chart for the US since the 50s:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

Contrary to what you say, US REAL GDP did not go down, but grew about 34% in the 1970s, meaning an annual growth of 3%. This means that the output of the country grew 3% more than inflation on average every year. The growth of GDP is the result of population growth + productivity growth (how much better we are at producing things). The past 100 yrs for which we have somewhat reliable statistics productivity growth has been quite stable, growing 1-2% per year in developed countries and more for undeveloped countries (starting from a lower base).

Now I already gave you the example why you need to consider costs to GDP not costs in themselves (even if they are adjusted for inflation). The true size of the economy is growing annually by inflation +REAL GDP growth. Since the latter has grown 2-3-4% per year annually on average, therefore you can understand that nominal GDP growth constantly outpaced the growth of nominal prices ie. inflation. What matters is costs relative to the size of the economy, just like costs to you matter relative to your salary.

Example:

You eran 1000 dollars per year. You incur a cost of 100 dollars. That's a big hit, 10% of your annual income. 10 years pass, inflation is 30% during that time, but now your salary is 2600 dollars. You incur the same cost: 100 dollars in old money, which is 130 dollars because of inflation. CPI adjusted the loss is the same, however it is now only 5% of your annual income, much more bearable, since you earn more (you had "real gdp growth" so to speak of). Consider GDP your salary and you will understand why this matters. I hope this makes it clear.


Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 17, 2019, 03:35:22 PM
Quote
REAL GDP growth is the growth rate of GDP ABOVE inflation.

Why does the GDP must be adjusted for inflation?  Do you know this answer? If you do, then apply the same concept to disaster cost. The REAL disaster cost is the disaster cost adjusted by inflation.

Quote
Contrary to what you say, US REAL GDP did not go down, but grew about 34% in the 1970s, meaning an annual growth of 3%.

You said GDP always went up, yet in the graph you posted it clearly shows many times GDP has gone down, with the 70's having many years of negative GDP growth and high inflation.

Quote
The growth of GDP is the result of population growth + productivity growth (how much better we are at producing things)

Yes, that's what GDP growth measures. Productivity, not value.

Quote
The past 100 yrs for which we have somewhat reliable statistics productivity growth has been quite stable, growing 1-2% per year in developed countries and more for undeveloped countries (starting from a lower base).

Very much so, but productivity growth is not value. It represents economic growth, not the value of things within the economy.

Quote
Now I already gave you the example why you need to consider costs to GDP not costs in themselves (even if they are adjusted for inflation)

"not costs in themselves" wow.  You want me to consider cost as proportion of the GDP and ignore the actual cost. Sorry but no. If GDP was salary and I followed that advise with items I purchased that is a sure path to bankruptcy. I'm sorry, but the actual cost matters and it is extremely important information.

Quote
The true size of the economy is growing annually by inflation +REAL GDP growth.

The productivity of the economy is certainly determined by GDP growth, but only after an inflation adjustment. In the same way the true cost of natural disaster (monetary value) is the cost of natural disasters after adjusting for inflation.

Quote
What matters is costs relative to the size of the economy, just like costs to you matter relative to your salary.

You are so close to getting it. Let's use your analogy. Let's say GDP is like a salary and natural disaster cost are like items you might purchase.

1. The cost of the items are completely independent from your salary. If you want to know the value of an item overtime you adjust the prices for inflation and compare. Salary is completely independent of that comparison. The same is true for GDP vs inflation. Adjusting for inflation tells you the actual cost, regardless of GDP growth.

2. When making the decision to purchase an item, salary does matter. The lower the price of the item relative to the salary the less significant the price becomes. For someone with a low salary buying a bowl of rice for 5 dollars might be a significant expense. To someone with a high salary the same bowl of rice for 5 dollars might be an insignificant percent.  The cost of the bowl of rice remains unchanged.

3. Salary and cost are not the only factor when purchasing an item. For example, some people have very high salaries but also have very high debt loads or costs of living. For such high salaried people the 5 dollar bowl of rice might be out of their reach.


Do you understand the difference now?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 17, 2019, 04:00:23 PM
This one to Archimid:

Since I have been working with economic statistics for 30+yrs and you do not have a correct understanding of these statistics here is a short primer :

REAL GDP growth is the growth rate of GDP ABOVE inflation. Here is a chart for the US since the 50s:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

Contrary to what you say, US REAL GDP did not go down, but grew about 34% in the 1970s, meaning an annual growth of 3%. This means that the output of the country grew 3% more than inflation on average every year. The growth of GDP is the result of population growth + productivity growth (how much better we are at producing things). The past 100 yrs for which we have somewhat reliable statistics productivity growth has been quite stable, growing 1-2% per year in developed countries and more for undeveloped countries (starting from a lower base).

Now I already gave you the example why you need to consider costs to GDP not costs in themselves (even if they are adjusted for inflation). The true size of the economy is growing annually by inflation +REAL GDP growth. Since the latter has grown 2-3-4% per year annually on average, therefore you can understand that nominal GDP growth constantly outpaced the growth of nominal prices ie. inflation. What matters is costs relative to the size of the economy, just like costs to you matter relative to your salary.

Example:

You eran 1000 dollars per year. You incur a cost of 100 dollars. That's a big hit, 10% of your annual income. 10 years pass, inflation is 30% during that time, but now your salary is 2600 dollars. You incur the same cost: 100 dollars in old money, which is 130 dollars because of inflation. CPI adjusted the loss is the same, however it is now only 5% of your annual income, much more bearable, since you earn more (you had "real gdp growth" so to speak of). Consider GDP your salary and you will understand why this matters. I hope this makes it clear.

Well said.  Everyone should be able to understand that now.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: magnamentis on April 17, 2019, 04:42:30 PM
always interesting to see several participants meaning the same, being right and ending up with in a dispute because of a different angle, different wording and not to first agreeing on terms.

may i remind you all that a cilinder is a circle from one (top) angle and a square from another (side) angle?

it's such a waste of energy that we, and that includes myself of course, alway need so much energy to come to terms while sharing the same or a very similar view.

this, just to make sure it's understood is a compliment to all of you, combined with a call to increas the angles and perspectives how to look at things and express them.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: kassy on April 17, 2019, 07:41:07 PM
Quote
The REAL disaster cost is the disaster cost adjusted by inflation.

Using numbers to make it objective sounds good but do they cover the whole story?
No they don´t.

It also depends on the disasters. Species that die out don´t come back but you can rebuild the beach houses until people don´t want to live there anymore when too much disasters hit close in time.

And of course the REAL cost does not cover individual human tragedy while that too is real.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 17, 2019, 08:27:51 PM
Quote
Using numbers to make it objective sounds good but do they cover the whole story?

Not even close.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on April 17, 2019, 09:49:46 PM
All else being equal, disaster damage should have gone down sharply thanks to orders-of-magnitude-better forecasting, warning systems, and more suitable building codes.
The fact that this hasn't happened should tell you something. But that is really off-topic here.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on April 17, 2019, 10:08:22 PM
Why the concentration on disasters? My guess it is a story of transition from places being livable, to places becoming less livable, to places becoming unlivable.

Extract from recent post by AbruptSLR
Quote
In addition to the overly simplistic nature of the IAM used by AR5 (such as they ignore interactions between impacting factors such as SLR, tides, storm surge, rainfall runoff, barometric pressures, etc.), but they largely ignore the matter of biocapacity and anthropogenic ecological footprint (see the attached image and the second linked website):

Title: "Earth Overshoot Day"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day

Extract: "(World Biocapacity / World Ecological Footprint ) × 365" 

Footnote: When do you guess that Earth Overshoot Day will occur in 2019?

When do you guess that Earth Overshoot Day will occur in 2030?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: piongain on April 28, 2019, 06:15:53 AM
Ok just because you are all adding to my growing depression humour me please. Whatever your individual view is of the future say at points 2030, 2050 and 2100, how much better are those futures in the hypothetical scenario that every last human being on the planet from FF CEO to politician to average citizen woke up in the morning, saw the damage we are doing and committed 100% to whatever the best course of action is from your point of view. Remember not to bite me :)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rodius on April 28, 2019, 07:05:20 AM
Ok just because you are all adding to my growing depression humour me please. Whatever your individual view is of the future say at points 2030, 2050 and 2100, how much better are those futures in the hypothetical scenario that every last human being on the planet from FF CEO to politician to average citizen woke up in the morning, saw the damage we are doing and committed 100% to whatever the best course of action is from your point of view. Remember not to bite me :)

I dont think it will make much difference for at least ten years.

Even if we did it perfectly.

To me, the atmosphere controls the game now, the temps will increase to at least 3C based on 410ppm CO2 (based on global temps during previous times it was similar to today).

The increases will just happen.

What we need to do now, on top of stopping greenhouse producing activities, is to prepare for the changes.
Figure out what to grow, what not to farm (most meats), simplify our lives (Rich world only), grow and eat locally. Make sure each part of the world can feed itself sustainably, work as a global community and allow people to migrate as needed, and the places they migrate too need to allow it to happen.

When events happen, act in a coordinated manner.

IF that was possible, we should reach the other side of the change over and rebuild.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Sam on April 28, 2019, 07:57:14 AM
When you leave out all that they left out - about July 29, 2019.

When you include everything they left out - about 1973.

Sam
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Pmt111500 on April 28, 2019, 08:42:16 AM
Ok just because you are all adding to my growing depression humour me please. Whatever your individual view is of the future say at points 2030, 2050 and 2100, how much better are those futures in the hypothetical scenario that every last human being on the planet from FF CEO to politician to average citizen woke up in the morning, saw the damage we are doing and committed 100% to whatever the best course of action is from your point of view. Remember not to bite me :)
This "waking up" would likely include the end of procreation until sustainable levels of living standards can be reached. So in 2050 the population of Earth would be in steep decline towards 2-4 billion. Reforesting and new foresting by providing clean enough water and ocean algae fertilization by dumping the necessary nutrients of the overconsumption society we currently have go a long way in getting the CO2 out of the atmosphere. This might be enough to stop the AGW before the critical limits for continental ice sheet disintegration are passed. Failing the above, BOE, that may happen very soon, could change the currents and their dynamics in Arctic Ocean and subsequently rain patterns all over the temperate NH. This would then destroy some of the crop growing regions, requiring further population reductions. Possibly this would involve committees on who have the rights to reproduce at all. People probably still want to enjoy some of the benefits of the global culture diversity we have today so all the connectivity we now have shouldn't be done away... ASIF will still be strong as ever and be selected to be a global advisory body. Hoping this isn't biting, but this is what might happen by "waking up".
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on April 28, 2019, 09:26:00 AM
Ok just because you are all adding to my growing depression humour me please. Whatever your individual view is of the future say at points 2030, 2050 and 2100, how much better are those futures in the hypothetical scenario that every last human being on the planet from FF CEO to politician to average citizen woke up in the morning, saw the damage we are doing and committed 100% to whatever the best course of action is from your point of view. Remember not to bite me :)
2030 siginificant change in the environmental trajectory,  2050 huge change. 2100 most of the ship turned around. Human civilization saved.
Sharp reduction in procreation, everybody 99% vegan, WW2-style effort to remove FF from all aspects of civilization, WW2-style reduction in consumption of unnecessary frivolities. Electricity and transportation and agriculture purely on renewables.  Industry purely on renewables. Construction and other hard-to-fix activities neutralized by forestry and/or carbon removal.
The sad thing is that it shouldn't even be difficult or tragic for anyone (except for those now growing rich by killing the environment). The tragic thing is that I don't see it ever happening, judging by the trajectory of human civilization and the basic psychological and economic patterns driving individuals and nations.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Sam on April 28, 2019, 10:40:05 AM
The tragic thing is that I don't see it ever happening, judging by the trajectory of human civilization and the basic psychological and economic patterns driving individuals and nations.

I agree Oren. What changing to meet these needs requires is nothing less than changing human nature itself. This article in the New Yorker gives a pretty good idea of what we are up against to do that.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds)

Sam
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on April 28, 2019, 10:42:30 AM
:)

Sharp reduction in procreation, everybody 99% vegan, WW2-style effort to remove FF from all aspects of civilization, WW2-style reduction in consumption of unnecessary frivolities. Electricity and transportation and agriculture purely on renewables.  Industry purely on renewables. Construction and other hard-to-fix activities neutralized by forestry and/or carbon removal.


I think the above is mostly realistic by 2100 other than going vegan. Animals have a role in agriculture and used that way they are good and not bad for the planet (see integrated regenerative agriculture).

Renewable energy is already competitive and will be even more so in the next 10-20 yrs, so no reason not to phase out all carbon-based energy production.

Problem is: energy is just a piece of the picture, because all unnecessary consumption must be reduced, from plastics to most of tourism, big homes, etc. That is going to ber much more difficult...
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: magnamentis on April 28, 2019, 05:27:38 PM
Sharp reduction in procreation, everybody 99% vegan ;)

can't resist to ask whether you see a correlation between being vegan and procreative capabilities?

LOL

no reply needed, just kidding
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Michael Hauber on April 29, 2019, 06:20:20 AM
Global temperatures about 0.2 degrees C warmer than now.  As the warming is not uniform some areas maybe be 0.4 warmer than now.

Sea level rises to be about 3cm higher than now.  Even under the most alarmist predictions of ice sheet collapse unlikely to be more than 5cm.

Frequency of hurricanes etc to be statistically indistinguishable from now.

Climate change deniers who predicted a reversal of the steady warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s, will ignore the failure of cooling to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Catastrophists who predicted a major acceleration of the warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s will ignore the failure of catastrophe to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Food security?  Climate change will steadily erode our ability to supply food.  The worlds population will steadily grow.  Science will steadily improve our ability to supply food.  At some stage food production might fall short of demand and cause serious problems for society.  Hard to predict whether it will be this decade (how much will advances in science, that is learning to do stuff we don't know how to do know help us out?), but considering the number of golf courses, non productive ornamental gardens and protected wilderness parks on the planet I think we might have a way to go yet.  Of course when these are being converted to agriculture because we need to eat its probably too late to avoid the food crisis.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: wdmn on April 29, 2019, 08:08:06 AM
@Michael Hauber

Nice b8 m8.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: b_lumenkraft on April 29, 2019, 08:26:17 AM
I remember how much hate Tom got for opening new threads and look how popular some of these threads have become.

#justsaying
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Wherestheice on April 29, 2019, 09:02:39 AM
Global temperatures about 0.2 degrees C warmer than now.  As the warming is not uniform some areas maybe be 0.4 warmer than now.

Sea level rises to be about 3cm higher than now.  Even under the most alarmist predictions of ice sheet collapse unlikely to be more than 5cm.

Frequency of hurricanes etc to be statistically indistinguishable from now.

Climate change deniers who predicted a reversal of the steady warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s, will ignore the failure of cooling to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Catastrophists who predicted a major acceleration of the warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s will ignore the failure of catastrophe to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Food security?  Climate change will steadily erode our ability to supply food.  The worlds population will steadily grow.  Science will steadily improve our ability to supply food.  At some stage food production might fall short of demand and cause serious problems for society.  Hard to predict whether it will be this decade (how much will advances in science, that is learning to do stuff we don't know how to do know help us out?), but considering the number of golf courses, non productive ornamental gardens and protected wilderness parks on the planet I think we might have a way to go yet.  Of course when these are being converted to agriculture because we need to eat its probably too late to avoid the food crisis.

You say this like there wasn't a great acceleration in warming between 2000 and now. I think we would need some serious luck to only warm .2 C by 2030.......We are emitting more greenhouse gases than ever. So just with that warming will continue to accelerate. Were almost certainly gonna lose more ice by 2030 (probably even a BOE), and theres a good chance we will lose some of the aerosol masking affect. And this is just a few of many factors that are causing warming.

Things are picking up fast. If we continue to underestimate and downplay the situation, there isn't gonna be a civilization around in a few decades to tell the tale of how we failed.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 29, 2019, 01:43:04 PM
Rodius said:
To me, the atmosphere controls the game now, the temps will increase to at least 3C based on 410ppm CO2 (based on global temps during previous times it was similar to today).


But don't we actually have to use CO2e which is even higher? Add in all the CFV, NOx, Methane, etc.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 29, 2019, 02:12:10 PM
My prediction for 2030 is that people that were predicting slow, easily adaptable climate change will pretend they never said such things. It is likely they tell everyone they have been warning us about the incoming doom for decades. Most of them will immediately forgive themselves for slowing down action against climate change.

Only a few of them will remember their part in making us unprepared and accept the responsibility.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: RikW on April 29, 2019, 02:27:11 PM
I won't be surprised if Michael Hauber is mostly correct. I think average numbers will be higher then he says, more around 0.3-0.6 degrees higher temperatures. But I don't expect there to be collapse of society for example, or huge climate problems compared to our current problems. It will be getting worse, but it will be slow so we are still the so-called heated frog who doens't really see the change. We will think, in then 10's and 20's it was also hot.

Greatest difference will be it won't be 5 minutes to midnight, but 10 seconds to midnight, even though change is happening, CO2 output will be stabilized or just have started to decrease slowly. Too little and almost too late.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on April 29, 2019, 02:32:56 PM
Global temperatures about 0.2 degrees C warmer than now.  As the warming is not uniform some areas maybe be 0.4 warmer than now.

Sea level rises to be about 3cm higher than now.  Even under the most alarmist predictions of ice sheet collapse unlikely to be more than 5cm.

Frequency of hurricanes etc to be statistically indistinguishable from now.

Climate change deniers who predicted a reversal of the steady warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s, will ignore the failure of cooling to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Catastrophists who predicted a major acceleration of the warming trend in the 00s, then the 10s will ignore the failure of catastrophe to arrive in the 20s and predict it for the 30s.

Food security?  Climate change will steadily erode our ability to supply food.  The worlds population will steadily grow.  Science will steadily improve our ability to supply food.  At some stage food production might fall short of demand and cause serious problems for society.  Hard to predict whether it will be this decade (how much will advances in science, that is learning to do stuff we don't know how to do know help us out?), but considering the number of golf courses, non productive ornamental gardens and protected wilderness parks on the planet I think we might have a way to go yet.  Of course when these are being converted to agriculture because we need to eat its probably too late to avoid the food crisis.

Seems reasonable, although I would disagree with eroding our ability to supply food, as recent changes have had the opposite effect.  But who knows?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on April 29, 2019, 03:35:38 PM
I won't be surprised if Michael Hauber is mostly correct. I think average numbers will be higher then he says, more around 0.3-0.6 degrees higher temperatures. But I don't expect there to be collapse of society for example, or huge climate problems compared to our current problems. It will be getting worse, but it will be slow so we are still the so-called heated frog who doens't really see the change. We will think, in then 10's and 20's it was also hot.

Greatest difference will be it won't be 5 minutes to midnight, but 10 seconds to midnight, even though change is happening, CO2 output will be stabilized or just have started to decrease slowly. Too little and almost too late.

I agree with you completely
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on April 29, 2019, 04:07:08 PM
I agree with you completely
Same here.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on April 29, 2019, 04:12:05 PM
I'm thinking tipping points. e.g.s

A few years ago the Amazon had a long and severe drought. There were fires, and worries on whether they could become a general burning out of the Amazon forest. Since that time temperatures are a bit higher, there is a lot less forest. If Bolsonaro and his cohorts win, the Amazon will lose even more forest even faster. A long-term drought in the Amazon could have disastrous long-term consequences after a disastrous fire.You can chuck in the forests and tundra of North America and Eurasia as other examples.

Current fishing practices will ensure total catch will be in severe decline by 2030. Will that tip ocean eco-systems into irreversible decline as the fishing fleets remorsely chase ever lower stocks? As Antarctic and Arctic sea ice declines, one of the foundations of the ocean eco-system, krill, will be in decline anyway.

Much arable agriculture (including England's arable fields dependence on river water) depends on irrigation. Which major groundwater sources (aquifers) will be beyond redemption by 2030. Don't assume desalination can fix all this, not even for the cities.

Will Phoenix, Arizona, fail to fix its water deficit? Will the Colorado water sharing agreement depend on water flows that no longer exist? 

Environmental degradation is a slow motion train wreck - until it is not.



Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 29, 2019, 04:22:28 PM
I think we will know this year. If we get a long overdue respite from billion dollar disaster then maybe there is more respite on the way. If the catastrophic storms, floods and fires continue at about the same rate as the last 4 years or get worse then the chance for slow climate change is almost none.

I think that watching the arctic will give you the best idea of how doomed or ok we are. If the decline continues we are f'ed. If it stabilizes, and nothing else breaks, then MH might be right.

However, given the uncertainties we have today and the possible consequences, it should be assumed that the worst will come to past, not the best. There is sufficient information today to know that the worst can very easily happen.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 29, 2019, 05:05:12 PM
Archimid:
So weather disasters in the next year or so (or absence thereof) will tell the story? In US:
Temperature is forecast to be above normal this summer on West, Gulf and East coasts:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=2
Much warmer all over in fall:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=5
Warmer all over in winter:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=8
And warmer nearly everywhere next spring:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/long_range/seasonal.php?lead=11
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Juan C. García on April 29, 2019, 06:10:58 PM
Sea level rises to be about 3cm higher than now.  Even under the most alarmist predictions of ice sheet collapse unlikely to be more than 5cm.
I think that must of the scientists didn't saw coming the Arctic sea ice melt that we had in the last 19 years. There was an acceleration that was hard to predict. Other scientists saw this acceleration and they forecast it will continue. It hasn’t happened after 2012 and I don’t know if it will happen or not, but it is not important to me if it doesn’t happen.
The Oceans are trapping 90% of the heat and they are already melting the ice on Greenland and Antarctica (OMG = “Oh! My God” = “Oceans Melting Greenland”). From my point of view, this will be one of the important events on the next 30 years (including 2030, of course).
There is now an acceleration on sea level rise. We had 43 mm (4.3 cm) of sea level rise in the last ten years and I expect maybe the double for 2019-2030. That will make humanity understand that global warming is real. We will see changes not as far as the poles, but changes on the coastal cities, like is already happening on coastal cities in Florida.

Edit:
So what do I expect for 2030? Global consciousness on the importance of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I hope this will happen on 2019, though!
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: wdmn on April 29, 2019, 06:39:20 PM
I'm thinking tipping points. e.g.s

A few years ago the Amazon had a long and severe drought. There were fires, and worries on whether they could become a general burning out of the Amazon forest. Since that time temperatures are a bit higher, there is a lot less forest. If Bolsonaro and his cohorts win, the Amazon will lose even more forest even faster. A long-term drought in the Amazon could have disastrous long-term consequences after a disastrous fire.You can chuck in the forests and tundra of North America and Eurasia as other examples.

And -- as you said -- it looks as though deforestation in the Amazon could tick up significantly over the next couple of years:

"Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research (INPE) has calculated that Bolsonaro’s policies could increase annual Amazonian deforestation from 6,900 square kilometres to 25,600 square kilometres in 2020."

https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2019/04/blog-ghazoul-forest-conservation-brazil.html


On the other hand, even Americans are starting to wake up to what is happening. The next 10 years will be full of more awakenings, and quite certainly attempts at massive political responses. Whether they will succeed or fail is another thing.


And back on the first hand, one of the more interesting things I've read recently is that emissions from the tar sands in Canada are up to 64% higher than reported.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/oilsands-carbon-emissions-study-1.5106809?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

This was not due to a fudging of the numbers, but of reporting standards that are inadequate. The companies were following all of the rules. If this is happening in Canada, I wonder how widespread it is elsewhere? And I wonder how far above RCP 8.5 our emissions might actually be? And how much farther along the path to perdition...

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 29, 2019, 08:11:36 PM
wdnm said:
On the other hand, even Americans are starting to wake up to what is happening. The next 10 years will be full of more awakenings, and quite certainly attempts at massive political responses. Whether they will succeed or fail is another thing.

Juan C. García said:
So what do I expect for 2030? Global consciousness on the importance of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I hope this will happen on 2019, though!

Maybe. But I don't see it yet around where I am...alarmists are still alarming, deniers are still denying. I changed my view on AGW only because I changed my view on PO...I always knew BAU would heat up the Earth if it went on, I just was surprised how long it is going on. And as long as the political situation is as it is, I will have to reluctantly continue voting for a GOP while simultaneously crying "A pox on both parties!" If I had a candidate who agreed with me on all issues it would be different, but I guess the only way to do that is if each person votes for themselves. Then it would go to the House for POTUS and each congressperson would cast a vote for themselves, for example. Nobody would get elected.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on April 29, 2019, 10:18:27 PM
Thanks for the links Tom_Mazanec.

After the 2015-2016 the world entered a new warmer climate regime. Is the increase frequency and intensity of disasters normal in the new climate regime? So far yes, but I need a bit more confirmation for the model that belongs to me. It is the expected consequence.

I think that the current rate of disaster is not sustainable. We will only know until we sustain it for long enough.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Alison on April 30, 2019, 05:57:43 AM
The next 11 years will not be very different from the past 11 years, IMO. We may see a year as bad as 2012 in the Arctic... but really big changes need more time, I think
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on May 07, 2019, 04:56:45 PM
Since we will have a turn-of-the-decade next winter, I anticipate seeing many predictions on 2030 (on all topics) starting in several months.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 07, 2019, 06:33:18 PM

And back on the first hand, one of the more interesting things I've read recently is that emissions from the tar sands in Canada are up to 64% higher than reported.


This is certainly worth reporting and contemplating but "64% higher" will do nothing to mobilize public opinion. A picture is worth a thousand words or, in this case, a single percentage.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 07, 2019, 06:36:38 PM
Thanks for the links Tom_Mazanec.

After the 2015-2016 the world entered a new warmer climate regime. Is the increase frequency and intensity of disasters normal in the new climate regime? So far yes, but I need a bit more confirmation for the model that belongs to me. It is the expected consequence.

I think that the current rate of disaster is not sustainable. We will only know until we sustain it for long enough.

I fully expect that weather disasters will continue to proliferate. Expect to hear historical and unprecedented ever more frequently. By 2030, we will have worn out the words.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Sam on May 07, 2019, 07:24:52 PM
Sigh,

I watch in horror each day as the rate of progression of catastrophic climate change inexorably increases. All the while, as expected, the political climate in countries all over the world goes deeper into denial, and people behave like people procreating and expanding as if the world were an unlimited playground.

The trends continue unabated and are accelerating as expected. The arctic ice is failing in ways that are almost beyond words. Yet, we have become so inured to it, that it hardly makes a dent in our perceptions. Rather than focus on the dominant factors we focus on the least important ones seemingly in the vain hope that somehow things are not as bad as they seem.

The ice thickness is failing rapidly. The Nares straight and the Beaufort have become monsters eating the last vestiges of "old" ice. We appear surely on pace to go well below 4 million km^2 of ice extent. Due to the silly 15% ice cover per many square kilometers being counted as all ice, the real condition is far worse.

Based on volume collapse, we look likely to see the first day with essentially no ice in the arctic ocean to arrive on schedule by the mid 2020s - and probably earlier - 2022-2023.

As we approach that, the weather is getting ever weirder, not just because of the general warming, but even more because of the weakening heat engine. Greenland will act as a bulwark to pause that collapse for a few centuries. But, the climate will be nothing like what we have known.

I fully expect that by 2030 that we will see:

1) a dramatic shift begin in the climate as we begin seeing ice free periods in the arctic ocean.
2) dramatic shifts continuing to accelerate in the decline of the deep oceanic currents that were driven by the ice.
3) anoxic zones expanding in both the atlantic and pacific oceans by the shifting and dying ocean currents
4) large scale impacts to ocean ecosystems as a result. These have already begun. By 2030 they should have truly dramatic impacts on fisheries.
5) weather shifts in rain and drought that jeopardize crops in major food producing zones.
6) a near complete collapse of the availability of fossil fuels in Africa to Africans that combined with weather shifts, resource wars, drought and pestilence lead to a dramatic increase in people trying to flee to safer and better places. That then in turn leads to war in Africa and in the middle east and possibly Europe.
7) a near complete collapse in fossil fuels for most of oceania.
8 ) an oscillation in the weather patterns where winters are warmer in general other than in the northeastern US, and where the late summer pattern shifts to a polar jet stream trying to orbit Greenland with dramatic impacts on the whole northern hemisphere.
9) the collapse of the ice bridges on several major glaciers in Antartica, particularly in West Antarctica (Thwaite's especially) resulting in massive impacts on the ocean systems around Antarctica. These are already underway as the distance to bottom under the ice edge is dramatically impacting the Krill along with massive over fishing by humans
10) resource wars. We already have Iraq and Syria in flames. Next up is Venezuela in a cold war like struggle over control of their oil. That began several years ago and will get progressively worse.. Next is Iran. That could quickly turn into a hot war with several potential outcomes, none of which are good. Over a dozen war games run on those scenarios have the US losing in all cases. Many lead to the loss of Saudi Oil terminals, and plummeting global oil supplies leading to collapse of markets and economies all over the world. I would not be surprised to see Turkmenistan and the other -stans, and the central European states consumed in these wars.
11) oscillating areas of drought and deluge as the climate shifts
12) even more massive translocation of people in many regions, not just Africa.
13) several nations breaking out of the pause on nuclear weapons development as a hedge to protect their perceived national interests. Chief among these: Japan, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia (before or after the collapse of the House of Saud). The current "cold" war like battle over resources may turn hot in some areas by 2030 leading to the exchange of strategic nuclear weapons. Other tensions over movement of peoples, resource limitations and the like may similarly lead to other wars.
14) many nations seem likely to shift to nationalistic or tyrannical governments in response to these pressure. The tendency will be to blame "them" for "our" problems in many societies. And that will inexorably lead to hostilities small and large.

In short - I see a pretty hostile future ahead by 2030. These events may unfold more slowly. Cooler heads may prevail for the worst parts involving humans. But our history as a species suggests the opposite.

By the 2050-2070 timeframe I fully expect that the last of the ice in the Arctic ocean will be gone. It will remain gone for over 100,000 years. Greenland will be under intense melting pressures. And in millennia (or less), that ice too will be lost. At that point, the atmospheric engine in the northern hemisphere dies. And the northern hemisphere converts to an equable climate system. The oceanic currents die for a time in the north leading to massive dead zones in the major oceans, which then convert to emitting hydrogen sulfide rather than oxygen. Life on earth becomes extremely difficult for all species everywhere. The key events here will likely be the collapse of the northern tundra, and the boiling of the clathrates from the shallow seas of the arctic ocean. The pulse of carbon into the atmosphere will render all human actions irrelevant. We will then repeat the PETM - possibly worse.

Our time to act to lessen the near term disasters is all but gone. Likewise, our chance to avert the world shifting to a hothouse earth in a rapid fashion is all but gone.

Attempts to limit global warming to 1.5 C failed. This is now long since in the rearview mirror. So to is 2 C. 2.5 C might be doable with massive concerted global action. That won't happen. More likely is that we will ultimately see a 10 C rise - a hothouse earth. Antarctica will be the control on that. It will take a very long time for the ice there to melt. And just maybe, the climate can recover over the next several hundred thousand years to something similar today, allowing some new species to ascend. They, whoever or whatever they are, will have the disadvantage and advantage of not having fossil fuels to destroy themselves. They are unlikely I think to be the descendants of the human line.

Sam
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Midnightsun on May 07, 2019, 07:39:09 PM
I think everything will be almost the same, but shittier. It's going to happen slow enough to not cause widespread panic, but the "good old days" of steady climate and economic growth will be gone. Here are my predictions.

I haven't seen anyone here really dig into the problems with food production. Periods of drought interspersed with floods have killed civilizations before. Food insecurity causes unrest.

Food prices overall in Sweden increased 2-3% after the drought 2018. Potatoes went up by 20%. Nobody is starving, but that's just from one bad summer.

2030 in EU: Increased immigration, increased spending on firefighting and decreased food production will cause unrest to be more frequent (yellow vests, burning cars etc). Continued polarization of political parties. More problems with MRSA, declining herd immunity and vectorborn diseases. Summers are now hot and dry, south Europe is getting quick desertification, resulting in internal immigration. Winters are unpredictable and false springs become a dreaded phenomenon due to the adverse effects on plants and insect life.

North America: increase of national disasters is taking a toll on the budget and food security. Homelessness will continue to increase and medieval diseases in their camps will start to become a big problem, infecting non-homeless as well. Water contamination has continued and a larger part of the population is now in deeper poverty, both food-insecure and safe-water insecure.

SE Asia: The heatwaves are becoming a huge problem. Food production is down. Island populations have started relocating. China has probably done something unthinkable in order to decrease population growth. Several cat5 cyclones per year result in strained economies.

MENA: So very very dry and hot. Several more nations have imploded like Syria did.

Africa: Droughts. Lots of 'em. South Africa has a similar collapse like Venezuela, caused by lack of maintenance and planning. Mozambique is long gone and is now a saltmarsh.

South America: Brazil has decimated the Amazon and is now facing a big problem with soil erosion and floods. Food insecurity all over.

Artic: the endemic species are not doing well at all. Walrus and seal populations have collapsed and polar bear pop is now following. In the fringe areas the polar fox is almost gone, red fox having taken over. +30C-summer heatwaves are now the norm, causing a fast change in the flora. BOE... Possible.

Overall: diseases. Old ones rear their ugly heads, new ones pop up.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 07, 2019, 08:13:18 PM
The next 11 years will not be very different from the past 11 years, IMO. We may see a year as bad as 2012 in the Arctic... but really big changes need more time, I think

Agreed.  It will take more time.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bbr2314 on May 07, 2019, 08:52:41 PM
I am not sure how much more time it will take. The changes we have seen since 2012 have been fairly astonishing over very wide areas. But the biggest shift besides less ice in the Arctic has been the worsening & prolonging of winter over the triangle between Hudson Bay, the Rockies, and the Great Lakes, as well as Quebec.

If the next 11 years match the past 7 years (or exceed), we would be looking at an extra month of winter, or more, for much of the Midwest. Parts of Quebec are now -1.5C on a yearly basis vs. 1980-2010 norms -- Climate Re-Analyzer says that re-glaciation starts in earnest at -2C and becomes very widespread by -3C.

Will we reach -3C (annual vs. 1980-2010 baseline) across wide regions of Quebec come 2030? I don't think so. Will parts of Quebec reach -3C? I think this is possible. And -2C? This is likely.

I consider the possibility of ^^^ to be a major wildcard in the evolving climate, as it is completely un-modeled, although its potential has been discussed by the likes of Hansen et al in words not quite so explicit, and at timeframes substantially farther in the future.

It is interesting to consider that in terms of a WARMING climate without glaciers, a 1-2C rise is a big deal, but not a climate-breaker. But in a region that is only marginally above freezing for part of the year, a 1-2C DROP in temperatures can result in rapid glaciation, and that has much more wide-reaching localized / regional effects across spring, summer, and autumn, than a globalized 1-2C rise in temps (IMO).
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Sam on May 07, 2019, 09:15:07 PM
I am not sure how much more time it will take. The changes we have seen since 2012 have been fairly astonishing over very wide areas. But the biggest shift besides less ice in the Arctic has been the worsening & prolonging of winter over the triangle between Hudson Bay, the Rockies, and the Great Lakes, as well as Quebec.

If the next 11 years match the past 7 years (or exceed), we would be looking at an extra month of winter, or more, for much of the Midwest. Parts of Quebec are now -1.5C on a yearly basis vs. 1980-2010 norms -- Climate Re-Analyzer says that re-glaciation starts in earnest at -2C and becomes very widespread by -3C.

Will we reach -3C (annual vs. 1980-2010 baseline) across wide regions of Quebec come 2030? I don't think so. Will parts of Quebec reach -3C? I think this is possible. And -2C? This is likely.

I consider the possibility of ^^^ to be a major wildcard in the evolving climate, as it is completely un-modeled, although its potential has been discussed by the likes of Hansen et al in words not quite so explicit, and at timeframes substantially farther in the future.

It is interesting to consider that in terms of a WARMING climate without glaciers, a 1-2C rise is a big deal, but not a climate-breaker. But in a region that is only marginally above freezing for part of the year, a 1-2C DROP in temperatures can result in rapid glaciation, and that has much more wide-reaching localized / regional effects across spring, summer, and autumn, than a globalized 1-2C rise in temps (IMO).

Glaciation - NOT.

The loss of the arctic ice cover will lead to rapid warming as the blue ocean event and gas release events kick in. Over the short term (extremely short in geological terms), the collapse of the deep oceanic current in the north Atlantic is likely to lead to longer colder winters in northern Europe, and drought and heating in southern Europe.

Similarly, in north America, the loss of the arctic ice cover causes a shift to Greenland being the cold pole. This in turn shifts the northern circulation to more of a Greenland centric focus. In the very near term this has meant arctic cold being shunted down across eastern Canada and the eastern seaboard of the United States.  This gives the immensely false impression to those who live there (especially politicians) that global warming isn't all that important.

This will not lead to glaciation. It will lead to a short period where the temperatures are at first somewhat colder (in the winters especially), followed by a period with progressively rising temperatures as the ice cover in the arctic fails over the next many decades. That then will be followed by a wholly different atmospheric setup with only Greenland having perennial ice. What exactly that will look like and how it will behave is anyones guess. The models may help, but we seem to be very close to the thermodynamic edge for the driving forces needed to support the three cell atmospheric circulation system. Is Greenland enough by itself to keep the three cell system spinning?

The models do not seem to deal all that well with that.

By the later part of this century, we will all know the answer to those questions - perhaps much sooner.  And that is just a blink in geologic timescales; no where near long enough to support glaciation.

Sam
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bbr2314 on May 07, 2019, 09:22:36 PM
I am not sure how much more time it will take. The changes we have seen since 2012 have been fairly astonishing over very wide areas. But the biggest shift besides less ice in the Arctic has been the worsening & prolonging of winter over the triangle between Hudson Bay, the Rockies, and the Great Lakes, as well as Quebec.

If the next 11 years match the past 7 years (or exceed), we would be looking at an extra month of winter, or more, for much of the Midwest. Parts of Quebec are now -1.5C on a yearly basis vs. 1980-2010 norms -- Climate Re-Analyzer says that re-glaciation starts in earnest at -2C and becomes very widespread by -3C.

Will we reach -3C (annual vs. 1980-2010 baseline) across wide regions of Quebec come 2030? I don't think so. Will parts of Quebec reach -3C? I think this is possible. And -2C? This is likely.

I consider the possibility of ^^^ to be a major wildcard in the evolving climate, as it is completely un-modeled, although its potential has been discussed by the likes of Hansen et al in words not quite so explicit, and at timeframes substantially farther in the future.

It is interesting to consider that in terms of a WARMING climate without glaciers, a 1-2C rise is a big deal, but not a climate-breaker. But in a region that is only marginally above freezing for part of the year, a 1-2C DROP in temperatures can result in rapid glaciation, and that has much more wide-reaching localized / regional effects across spring, summer, and autumn, than a globalized 1-2C rise in temps (IMO).

Glaciation - NOT.

The loss of the arctic ice cover will lead to rapid warming as the blue ocean event and gas release events kick in. Over the short term (extremely short in geological terms), the collapse of the deep oceanic current in the north Atlantic is likely to lead to longer colder winters in northern Europe, and drought and heating in southern Europe.

Similarly, in north America, the loss of the arctic ice cover causes a shift to Greenland being the cold pole. This in turn shifts the northern circulation to more of a Greenland centric focus. In the very near term this has meant arctic cold being shunted down across eastern Canada and the eastern seaboard of the United States.  This gives the immensely false impression to those who live there (especially politicians) that global warming isn't all that important.

This will not lead to glaciation. It will lead to a short period where the temperatures are at first somewhat colder (in the winters especially), followed by a period with progressively rising temperatures as the ice cover in the arctic fails over the next many decades. That then will be followed by a wholly different atmospheric setup with only Greenland having perennial ice. What exactly that will look like and how it will behave is anyones guess. The models may help, but we seem to be very close to the thermodynamic edge for the driving forces needed to support the three cell atmospheric circulation system. Is Greenland enough by itself to keep the three cell system spinning?

The models do not seem to deal all that well with that.

By the later part of this century, we will all know the answer to those questions - perhaps much sooner.  And that is just a blink in geologic timescales; no where near long enough to support glaciation.

Sam
Your statements are ignorant of what has been happening on the ground since 2012. You are, however, free to your opinion, even if you are completely ignoring the impact of freshwater hosing on the NATL, and the studies produced by Hansen et al which show what is already unfolding, happening in the future.

PS: what's a post without data backing it up? Here you go -- ANNUAL change over last 365 days compared to 2012, as well as vs. 1980-2010.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on May 07, 2019, 09:59:54 PM
if my eyes are not wrong then the past 12 months (on your 2nd chart) have been only marginally (0,5-1 C) colder than the 1980-2010 average around the Hudson while it has been significantly warmer everywhere else. The US was generally warmer, even the whole of Canada is unchanged vs the climatological average, so I think that Sam is closer to the truth based on the data
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bbr2314 on May 07, 2019, 10:03:30 PM
if my eyes are not wrong then the past 12 months (on your 2nd chart) have been only marginally (0,5-1 C) colder than the 1980-2010 average around the Hudson while it has been significantly warmer everywhere else. The US was generally warmer, even the whole of Canada is unchanged vs the climatological average, so I think that Sam is closer to the truth based on the data
My post was literally about that specific area. I said nothing else otherwise re: predominating heat. The two can co-exist.

I.E., in BOLD,

"But the biggest shift besides less ice in the Arctic has been the worsening & prolonging of winter over the triangle between Hudson Bay, the Rockies, and the Great Lakes, as well as Quebec. "

The region of Quebec that is averaging up to -1.5C annually is also the coldest part of Quebec, which is why this small change makes a huge difference to sensible weather.

"Modern" 0C:

(https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/ecm/images/ECM_5_1_12_0.jpg)

By -2C, glaciation re-commences in the highest elevations, specifically in the areas that are darkest blue in my previous map.

(https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/ecm/images/ECM_5_1_12_-2.jpg)

Now, is Climate Reanalyzer's ECM model perfect? Probably not. But it is the best indicator we have of what sensible impacts an extension of our current drop in temps will have on that region. Besides re-glaciation, it also probably includes massive forest fires before that point, as vegetation will begin to die en-masse (at least if CCR is correct, given the impending transition from alpine forests back to tundra that may be imminent across much of the region).

By -3C, the changes become MUCH more expansive.

(https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/ecm/images/ECM_5_1_12_-3.jpg)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on May 07, 2019, 10:51:03 PM
Oh dear. The Quebec reglaciation again.
Quebec cannot glaciate when all around it warmth abounds. The -3C ECM that you refer to is for global temps. -3C just in Quebec will not cause it to keep its snow throughout the summer. But we've been through this many times before.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bbr2314 on May 07, 2019, 10:55:11 PM
Oh dear. The Quebec reglaciation again.
Quebec cannot glaciate when all around it warmth abounds. The -3C ECM that you refer to is for global temps. -3C just in Quebec will not cause it to keep its snow throughout the summer. But we've been through this many times before.
Indeed we have! So I will not continue with refuting your points as I have in the past. We shall see what happens come 2030.  :)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 07, 2019, 10:56:55 PM
Well we may not have a reglaciation of the NH but we certainly have had a blizzard of glaciation posts here.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 07, 2019, 10:59:46 PM
Oh dear. The Quebec reglaciation again.
Quebec cannot glaciate when all around it warmth abounds. The -3C ECM that you refer to is for global temps. -3C just in Quebec will not cause it to keep its snow throughout the summer. But we've been through this many times before.
Indeed we have! So I will not continue with refuting your points as I have in the past. We shall see what happens come 2030.  :)

I have yet to see you refute any substantive posts from the more informed commenters here when this inane topic about the impending reglaciation of the NH rears its ugly head.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bbr2314 on May 07, 2019, 11:22:59 PM
Oh dear. The Quebec reglaciation again.
Quebec cannot glaciate when all around it warmth abounds. The -3C ECM that you refer to is for global temps. -3C just in Quebec will not cause it to keep its snow throughout the summer. But we've been through this many times before.
Indeed we have! So I will not continue with refuting your points as I have in the past. We shall see what happens come 2030.  :)

I have yet to see you refute any substantive posts from the more informed commenters here when this inane topic about the impending reglaciation of the NH rears its ugly head.
If the Torngat Mountains retain snowcover through August this year as they did last, what more refutation would you need? How many years of growing snowcover are necessary for the definition of re-glaciation to be met? I would classify one full year of snowcover as "annual" snowcover, and two full years as re-glaciation. We can check back in come September 1st and see what happened over the summer, but my hunch says we will retain snowcover over the mountains this August.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: magnamentis on May 08, 2019, 12:22:33 AM
almost regretting the post i didn't submit in the melting season thread on the topic of predictions.

glad to see that if i refrain that things don't remain unspoken LOL

my proposal to deal with certain kind of predictions was to max 3 times moderate and then ban because it disrupts almost any useful discussion by means of persistence and lack of empathy.

this topic has been brought up, discussed and can now be dropped for a few years or until either it happened or palm trees are growing instead of an ice-shield. ;)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 08, 2019, 01:42:07 AM
First time poster.

I think people are underestimating Sea Level Rise. From 2011-2015, sea levels rose 8mm / year before we ran into the big El Nino of 2016 where oceans contracted due to heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere. I think there is good reason to believe that 8mm / yr is the new baseline and we'll see more acceleration on top of that.

By 2030, our ability to predict sea level rise is going to improve dramatically. I think we'll easily get 3-4" globally (75-100mm) between now and 2030. That's not going to fundamentally alter people's ability to live, but the writing is going to be on the wall.

Financial markets and asset valuations are based upon projected cash flows. The expected useful life of coastal real estate assets is going to shrink. Flood insurance is going to increase in price or be withdrawn entirely. Mortgage availability is going to diminish. Real estate prices will contract....municipal borrowing costs will increase as the property tax base declines and mitigation and adaptation expenses increase. Municipal bankruptcies will follow. A state like Florida will require federal assistance to stay afloat.

A problem we have with galvanizing public support for climate change is that individual events impact only a small portion of the population at a time. The financial market chaos of the early 2030's is a default setting for getting everyone on the same page. Something else could happen sooner, but that's my projection.

Orbital cycles which govern tides revolve everyone 18.6 years. They peak next in 2034-35. By they, we'll have at least 5-6" in sea level rise on top of peak kind tide flooding and whatever storms are thrown in on top of that.

Since 2016, we've had 17 storms with sustained winds >= 150 MPH + Harvey + Florence. The water is coming in folks.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bbr2314 on May 08, 2019, 03:45:17 AM
Here is last 3 yrs March-April vs. 2010-2011-12. I don't think it is hard to imagine a doubling of extremes on both sides of the spectrum in another seven years, and 11 years out? It's more than plausible. March-April is likely to be substantially colder than today across most of inhabited North America, but in Eurasia, the line between winter and summer is likely to become increasingly abrupt and early. This is perfectly compatible with rising average global temps.

If we are going to consider specifics of 2030's climate and sensible weather based on recent trends since our nearest-BOE, we can begin to ascertain that April is possibly going to become a winter month across much of the Grain Belt of North America by 2025, with early May following by 2030. At that point, March and April's average temperatures could be another 3-5C lower than today, with May and June probably following suit as the snow lingers longer + falls harder and more often up north, and the patterns become more stuck.

On the flip side, the dry steppes of Central Asia will bake under record-early heatwaves, sending multiple plumes of 85-90F temperatures into the ESS and Chukchi by mid-April. By this point, the Bering's icecover will be sporadic at best, while the Chukchi will be transitioning to mostly ice-free, with ice days at Barrow down 50% compared to 2019's levels.

I think pinning down predictions by seasonal impacts is probably more important than annual as the differences become much more relevant when broken down month by month (IMO).

Also: one final note, as snowcover extends deeper into spring, anomalies vs. normal are likely to deepen substantially (32F vs. 50F norm in April is only -18F, 32F vs 60F norm in May is -28F). This may result in temps skewing severely colder than current levels in the last weeks of April and much of May across the core of the negative anomalies in North America.

The previously-mentioned values of 3-5C below current temps have much more room to spiral off the deep end as winter extends longer into what would normally be spring (i.e. April and May for many, June for some, July and eventually year-round for the Inuit).

With the proposed / probable scope of impending temperatures changes concordant with what we have recently observed (IMO), this also means that most high latitude forests are going to burn within the next decade. There are going to be worsening annual plumes of forest and peat fires until there is nothing left to burn or temperatures drop sufficiently for year-round snowcover to return due to the other feedbacks at play (albedo and meltwater). It is going to be particularly terrible for Siberia, evidently, but the worsening cold in much of North America is likely to imminently be equally as damaging for vegetation. We have already seen early examples of this in California last year.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bbr2314 on May 08, 2019, 04:07:19 AM
Also, here is the last year (365 days ending 4/30) versus eleven years ago. It may be an arbitrary comparison but 365 days is a decent enough sample size. The only question is whether we are +/- these numbers in 2030, or the numbers vs. 2012 (IMO). I would hedge on the accelerated +/- distribution we have seen evolve since 2012.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 08, 2019, 02:58:49 PM
First time poster.

I think people are underestimating Sea Level Rise. From 2011-2015, sea levels rose 8mm / year before we ran into the big El Nino of 2016 where oceans contracted due to heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere. I think there is good reason to believe that 8mm / yr is the new baseline and we'll see more acceleration on top of that.

By 2030, our ability to predict sea level rise is going to improve dramatically. I think we'll easily get 3-4" globally (75-100mm) between now and 2030. That's not going to fundamentally alter people's ability to live, but the writing is going to be on the wall.

Financial markets and asset valuations are based upon projected cash flows. The expected useful life of coastal real estate assets is going to shrink. Flood insurance is going to increase in price or be withdrawn entirely. Mortgage availability is going to diminish. Real estate prices will contract....municipal borrowing costs will increase as the property tax base declines and mitigation and adaptation expenses increase. Municipal bankruptcies will follow. A state like Florida will require federal assistance to stay afloat.

A problem we have with galvanizing public support for climate change is that individual events impact only a small portion of the population at a time. The financial market chaos of the early 2030's is a default setting for getting everyone on the same page. Something else could happen sooner, but that's my projection.

Orbital cycles which govern tides revolve everyone 18.6 years. They peak next in 2034-35. By they, we'll have at least 5-6" in sea level rise on top of peak kind tide flooding and whatever storms are thrown in on top of that.

Since 2016, we've had 17 storms with sustained winds >= 150 MPH + Harvey + Florence. The water is coming in folks.

Rich,
Sorry, but you are cherry-picking.  Selectively choosing the highest rate over the past decades does no one any good.  Conversely, someone could choose the last three years, when sea level rise has slowed to 1.5 mm/year, and say that the water is slowing.  Neither describes the situation accurately. 
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 08, 2019, 04:12:48 PM
Welcome to the ASIF, Rich.

KK's "cherry pick" comment may well be true, but he is cherry picking, too, as he only commented on one aspect of your post, and apparently swept everything else in it.  And he should have welcomed you, first.  Manners!  :o

I don't think your, "I think people are underestimating Sea Level Rise," could qualify as cherry picking (!), but are you part of the 'people' who are doing the underestimating, or did you mean 'some people', or did you mean 'denialists and the folks who listen to them' or did you mean 'scientists who study it'?  (I have a friend who thinks Miami will have 5 or 6 meters of SLR by 2100; I suspect it will be around 2 m, while some project 1m; are we all underestimating?)

I agree scientists will be better at predicting local sea level rise in the future, and I'm sure some of your financial market comments are accurate.  My pension comes from Florida: will the feds bail 'me' out? 

Interesting comment about orbital cycles.  Could you post a reference on a more-relevant thread? (maybe reactivate the Sea Level Rise Projections and Maps (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,526.msg21348.html#msg21348) thread?)

Anyway, welcome!

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 08, 2019, 04:59:38 PM
Sorry, I should have welcomed Rich first.  My fault.  While I commented on one aspect only, that aspect influenced the rest of his post.  Yes, scientists may be better be able to predict sea level rise in the future.  However, sea level rise has been relatively steady during the satellite era, accounting for EL Nino/La Nina years. 

You say that you expect 2m by 2100.  That would mean an average rise of 25mm/year for the next 80 years.  I do not feel that is underestimating at all.  Rather, I feel it is an overestimate.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 08, 2019, 05:30:51 PM
My projection, based on other's (https://thinkprogress.org/scientist-miami-as-we-know-it-today-is-doomed-its-not-a-question-of-if-it-s-a-question-of-when-3b3212be388d/), is for Miami (which, besides SLR, is sinking due to groundwater removal, I understand).  Also, SLR is accelerating (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/sea-level-rise-is-accelerating/), so I don't expect "25mm/year" before 2030 (and I've not graphed a curve to find out when it would).
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 08, 2019, 07:32:16 PM


Rich,
Sorry, but you are cherry-picking.  Selectively choosing the highest rate over the past decades does no one any good.  Conversely, someone could choose the last three years, when sea level rise has slowed to 1.5 mm/year, and say that the water is slowing.  Neither describes the situation accurately.

I'm happy to pick up the topic of "cherry picking" and peel back the layer on that claim.

If you look at the chart of sea level rise in the satellite era, you will sea a relatively steady rise in the graph with 3 significant downward spikes in 1998, 2011 and 2016. There are no dramatic upward "spikes."

The downward spikes are associated with El Nino's ('98 and '16) and an unusual precipitation event which transferred massive amounts of water from ocean to land ('11).

As far as I know, there is no theory which supports any exogenous processes causing short-term spikes in global sea level rise. Only the chronic processes of thermal expansion and loss of land ice are material factors in GMSL increase.

If we peer closely at the curve, we see the pause for the 2016 El Nino and the resumption of the 8mm year increase in 2017. Another pause follows and the resumption of the accelerated increase from April to October 2018.

You can jump to the assumption of "cherry picking", but I'll challenge you to offer a cogent theory as to what might be causing a short-term increase in the slope of the curve that wouldn't be sustained.

The signal is there that SLR is accelerating and it's corroborated by all of the reports that Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at accelerating rates. Will their continue to be periodic downward adjustments for events like El Nino's and other anomalies like the 2011 precipitation event? Absolutely!

What I'm saying is that we've entered a new normal for the chronic processes of thermal expansion and land ice loss which will only increase in pace in the coming decades.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: b_lumenkraft on May 08, 2019, 07:50:10 PM
First 'like' well earned Rich. Welcome to the forum.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: magnamentis on May 08, 2019, 07:54:08 PM
First 'like' well earned Rich. Welcome to the forum.

LOL, not kidding, just wanted to write the same, hence

+1 = 2
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: b_lumenkraft on May 08, 2019, 08:02:43 PM
The downward spikes are associated with El Nino's ('98 and '16) and an unusual precipitation event

Do you have a source or graph handy Rich?

+1

German saying: Zwei Seelen, ein Gedanke. (two souls, one thought)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 08, 2019, 08:43:16 PM
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

As far as I know, the above NASA chart is the standard for GMSL. The 8mm / year increase can be seen from 2011-15, 2017 and April-Oct, 2018.

If you're interested in the 18.6 year tidal cycle, you can google it or "nodal precession".

For what it's worth, I'm interested in climate activism and the inflection points which will govern societal transformation around the challenge. After a lot of investigation, I've arrived at the hypothesis that we can't get past the early 2030's without running into a major financial meltdown. Could the global punch in the face come earlier? Sure.

Hopefully, we wake up before then. Telling people that disaster in coming in 2100 is not very effective in my experience. Sadly, not enough people are motivated by the plight of young people and future generations.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: b_lumenkraft on May 08, 2019, 08:46:50 PM
Thanks Rich.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: magnamentis on May 08, 2019, 08:55:28 PM
. Could the global punch in the face come earlier? Sure.

Hopefully, we wake up before then.

way before 2030 ;)

perhaps it's worth to add something that many are not aware off, is that our monetary system is doomed on day one of its implementation (i.e. currency reforms etc.)

this is due to interest on interest on interest ....... everyone can start with one €/$ and add 5% average per year and see what well happen, mostly sooner than later due to additional mistakes made.

however, coming a bit back on topic, the very same interest on interest etc......  is in big parts respononsible for "forced growth" and inflation and i'm not only talking about hyperinflation like it happend with FFR, turkish lira, germany before WW2  as well as italy over and over again.
the "normal" inflation is enough to drive the punch that ultimately is knocking the system out on cost of the environment and the middle class, the people in the middle who are not supported by the system and not rich/independent enough to opt out to a certain degree.

they pay tax from profits and loose everything when they fail (or get divorced LOL)

could go on for long here, hence end it, sure you know that but i know many are not aware of the significance of the above mentioned and other human and systemic flaws.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Gray-Wolf on May 08, 2019, 08:55:51 PM
Anyone plotting the doubling time period for sea level rise?

The first few doublings don't matter much but further into the 'doublings' things get a bit crazy!

If we are now less than 8 years for 'melt' doubling occurring I'm worried!

I know we passed 'thermal expansion' a few years back so we must be , by now, eating into 'doubling rates'?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on May 08, 2019, 09:01:31 PM
as far as i can see, that is 40mm in 10 yrs, equal to 4mm/yr not 8
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 08, 2019, 09:27:50 PM
as far as i can see, that is 40mm in 10 yrs, equal to 4mm/yr not 8

I agree.  He originally stated 8 mm/yr from 2011-2015, which are the trough and peak on the graph.  Which is why I called him on it.  We are not seeing a doubling of sea level rise at the moment.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 08, 2019, 09:32:13 PM
as far as i can see, that is 40mm in 10 yrs, equal to 4mm/yr not 8

I'm trying to help people understand how to look at the chart and differentiate between chronic processes (thermal expansion and land ice loss) and event driven processes like El Nino's which drive the average down.

Any layperson can look at the chart and see something fundamentally different in the chart before and after 2010. The slope of the curve is clearly steeper after 2010, especially if we understand the events of 2011 and 2016 which caused things to go in another direction.





Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 08, 2019, 09:47:58 PM
as far as i can see, that is 40mm in 10 yrs, equal to 4mm/yr not 8

I agree.  He originally stated 8 mm/yr from 2011-2015, which are the trough and peak on the graph.  Which is why I called him on it.  We are not seeing a doubling of sea level rise at the moment.

I also offered 2017 as an example of the 8 mm/ yr increase and invited you to offer an explanation of what the root causes of the 8 mm/ yr slope are.

It's clear that we had a strong El Nino in 2016 and consequent thermal contraction of the ocean as heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere with these events. We are presently also in a borderline El Nino situation as well.

You haven't presented anything which contradicts the assertion that 8mm / year intervals are occurring and what might possibly be driving them other than increases in chronic processes.

I'm not arguing that the new average is 8 mm / year. I'm arguing that this is the new baseline in the absence of event driven processes which bring the average down. The El Nino's will continue to occur.



Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 08, 2019, 10:04:43 PM
Here is last 3 yrs March-April vs. 2010-2011-12. I don't think it is hard to imagine a doubling of extremes on both sides of the spectrum in another seven years, and 11 years out? It's more than plausible. March-April is likely to be substantially colder than today across most of inhabited North America, but in Eurasia, the line between winter and summer is likely to become increasingly abrupt and early. This is perfectly compatible with rising average global temps.

If we are going to consider specifics of 2030's climate and sensible weather based on recent trends since our nearest-BOE, we can begin to ascertain that April is possibly going to become a winter month across much of the Grain Belt of North America by 2025, with early May following by 2030. At that point, March and April's average temperatures could be another 3-5C lower than today, with May and June probably following suit as the snow lingers longer + falls harder and more often up north, and the patterns become more stuck.

On the flip side, the dry steppes of Central Asia will bake under record-early heatwaves, sending multiple plumes of 85-90F temperatures into the ESS and Chukchi by mid-April. By this point, the Bering's icecover will be sporadic at best, while the Chukchi will be transitioning to mostly ice-free, with ice days at Barrow down 50% compared to 2019's levels.

I think pinning down predictions by seasonal impacts is probably more important than annual as the differences become much more relevant when broken down month by month (IMO).

Also: one final note, as snowcover extends deeper into spring, anomalies vs. normal are likely to deepen substantially (32F vs. 50F norm in April is only -18F, 32F vs 60F norm in May is -28F). This may result in temps skewing severely colder than current levels in the last weeks of April and much of May across the core of the negative anomalies in North America.

The previously-mentioned values of 3-5C below current temps have much more room to spiral off the deep end as winter extends longer into what would normally be spring (i.e. April and May for many, June for some, July and eventually year-round for the Inuit).

With the proposed / probable scope of impending temperatures changes concordant with what we have recently observed (IMO), this also means that most high latitude forests are going to burn within the next decade. There are going to be worsening annual plumes of forest and peat fires until there is nothing left to burn or temperatures drop sufficiently for year-round snowcover to return due to the other feedbacks at play (albedo and meltwater). It is going to be particularly terrible for Siberia, evidently, but the worsening cold in much of North America is likely to imminently be equally as damaging for vegetation. We have already seen early examples of this in California last year.

Sorry about quoting such a long post. You tell nice stories without a shred of evidence.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 08, 2019, 10:16:48 PM
as far as i can see, that is 40mm in 10 yrs, equal to 4mm/yr not 8

I'm trying to help people understand how to look at the chart and differentiate between chronic processes (thermal expansion and land ice loss) and event driven processes like El Nino's which drive the average down.

Any layperson can look at the chart and see something fundamentally different in the chart before and after 2010. The slope of the curve is clearly steeper after 2010, especially if we understand the events of 2011 and 2016 which caused things to go in another direction.

Any layperson can see difference that are not real also.  According to NASA, sea level rise has increased 33% over the past quarter century.  They anticipate a continuance, but admit that could change pending changes in the large ice sheets.  At that rate, sea level rise will not hit 8mm/year until next century.


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 08, 2019, 10:55:06 PM
  At that rate, sea level rise will not hit 8mm/year until next century.



SLR has already hit 8mm / yr for a 4 year interval. It's just a question of the length of the interval that is relevant to you.

15k years ago, SLR averaged 30mm / yr for ~ 500 years.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 08, 2019, 11:19:06 PM
  At that rate, sea level rise will not hit 8mm/year until next century.



SLR has already hit 8mm / yr for a 4 year interval. It's just a question of the length of the interval that is relevant to you.

Yes.  Continuing your 4-year interval to present day result in 4mm / year, as mentioned by El Cid.  Short term trends tend to be used by those pushing an agenda, rather than science.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 08, 2019, 11:44:10 PM

Yes.  Continuing your 4-year interval to present day result in 4mm / year, as mentioned by El Cid.  Short term trends tend to be used by those pushing an agenda, rather than science.

I invite you to engage in a scientific explanation of how 8mm / yr for 4 years is even possible.

Do you have any suggestion that it could have come from anywhere else but land ice loss and thermal expansion? If not, do you have any reason to suggest that those chronic sources of SLR are going to slow down in the future?

I can offer at least offer a cogent scientific explanation for the slowdown after 2015...El Nino. After which the 8 mm/ yr has resumed for the majority of the period after the El Nino subsided.

You seem more interested in dogma than science. The proof will come with time.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 09, 2019, 12:09:13 AM

Yes.  Continuing your 4-year interval to present day result in 4mm / year, as mentioned by El Cid.  Short term trends tend to be used by those pushing an agenda, rather than science.

I invite you to engage in a scientific explanation of how 8mm / yr for 4 years is even possible.

Do you have any suggestion that it could have come from anywhere else but land ice loss and thermal expansion? If not, do you have any reason to suggest that those chronic sources of SLR are going to slow down in the future?

I can offer at least offer a cogent scientific explanation for the slowdown after 2015...El Nino. After which the 8 mm/ yr has resumed for the majority of the period after the El Nino subsided.

You seem more interested in dogma than science. The proof will come with time.

I am not convinced that it is possible at this time.  It may just be noise over the short term.  If we start to observe these trends over more that one ENSO cycle, then I will consider your theory.  However, since it was not observed during previous cycles, I have mr reservations.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 09, 2019, 01:34:24 AM

Yes.  Continuing your 4-year interval to present day result in 4mm / year, as mentioned by El Cid.  Short term trends tend to be used by those pushing an agenda, rather than science.

I invite you to engage in a scientific explanation of how 8mm / yr for 4 years is even possible.

Do you have any suggestion that it could have come from anywhere else but land ice loss and thermal expansion? If not, do you have any reason to suggest that those chronic sources of SLR are going to slow down in the future?

I can offer at least offer a cogent scientific explanation for the slowdown after 2015...El Nino. After which the 8 mm/ yr has resumed for the majority of the period after the El Nino subsided.

You seem more interested in dogma than science. The proof will come with time.

I am not convinced that it is possible at this time.  It may just be noise over the short term.  If we start to observe these trends over more that one ENSO cycle, then I will consider your theory.  However, since it was not observed during previous cycles, I have mr reservations.

Your comment doesn't make any sense. We had a 4 year interval of 8mm/ yr from 2011-2015. I'm asking how that was possible.

Are you saying that you believe the NASA satellite measurements are incorrect? These are averages over thousands of locations. The margin of error in these measurements is a fraction of a millimeter.

According to NASA, from April 2011 to October 2015, SLR rose 36mm. Are you saying that NASA is wrong? What is the "noise" that you speak of? Is that a scientific term?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on May 09, 2019, 02:32:25 AM
Thanks Rich.
Looking at the chart, adding my unscientific trendline, I can say I definitely see a change at some point in the past few years.
I could see how thermal expansion during the run-up to an El-Nino would be compensated by a slowdown afterwards. But the net trend in the past tended to revert to the previous trendline. This time it didn't.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 09, 2019, 02:53:52 AM

Yes.  Continuing your 4-year interval to present day result in 4mm / year, as mentioned by El Cid.  Short term trends tend to be used by those pushing an agenda, rather than science.

I invite you to engage in a scientific explanation of how 8mm / yr for 4 years is even possible.

Do you have any suggestion that it could have come from anywhere else but land ice loss and thermal expansion? If not, do you have any reason to suggest that those chronic sources of SLR are going to slow down in the future?

I can offer at least offer a cogent scientific explanation for the slowdown after 2015...El Nino. After which the 8 mm/ yr has resumed for the majority of the period after the El Nino subsided.

You seem more interested in dogma than science. The proof will come with time.

I am not convinced that it is possible at this time.  It may just be noise over the short term.  If we start to observe these trends over more that one ENSO cycle, then I will consider your theory.  However, since it was not observed during previous cycles, I have mr reservations.

Your comment doesn't make any sense. We had a 4 year interval of 8mm/ yr from 2011-2015. I'm asking how that was possible.

Are you saying that you believe the NASA satellite measurements are incorrect? These are averages over thousands of locations. The margin of error in these measurements is a fraction of a millimeter.

According to NASA, from April 2011 to October 2015, SLR rose 36mm. Are you saying that NASA is wrong? What is the "noise" that you speak of? Is that a scientific term?

Yes, noise is a scientific term.  It is random variations in the data.  It is present in every dataset.  It concerns me that you are unfamiliar with its usage.  The satellite data showed a much slower rate of rise since 2015.  Additionally NASA has used different satellites to measure sea level, such that the merging of the datasets may not match exactly.  More noise.  NASA is not wrong, just those that misinterpret their data.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: vox_mundi on May 09, 2019, 03:03:43 AM
A fact is described as a statement that can be verified or proved to be true. Opinion is an expression of judgment or belief about something. Fact relies on observation or research while opinion is based on assumption. The fact is an objective reality whereas opinion is a subjective statement.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d4/78/e3/d478e336a3f9c65d2f0314768e293fa4.jpg)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 09, 2019, 03:39:56 AM
So true.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 09, 2019, 04:18:08 AM

Yes, noise is a scientific term.  It is random variations in the data.

There is nothing random in the variation of the data.

The reported result varies either because the actual data (GMSL) is changing or because (as you point out) the regime for measuring the actual data is imprecise. If you want to hang your hat on NASA's data being wrong, suit yourself.

From 2011 to the present, the general rule has been that SLR has either been within an interval of 8mm / yr growth OR it has been responding to an El Nino in 2016. The exception to the general rule is a few months in 2018.

If you look at the chart, the major El Nino's of 1998/2016 are accompanied by a significant drop in SLR which conforms to our understanding of how they work. We also saw surface temperature records in those years as heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere is a signature element of an El Nino.

We also have more than abundant reporting about the significant acceleration of ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica in recent years. I've lurked on this site enough to know that most people here get this and know that this is contributing to accelerating SLR. There's no place else for the ice to go and the ramp up in SLR is exactly what people should be expecting.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 09, 2019, 05:06:41 AM
Anybody who claims wiggles on graphs of measurements made of natural phenomena are not random, will have to prove it mathematically.  Tamino (https://tamino.wordpress.com/) has a blog where he regularly shows data to be significant or not with relation to a 'visual first guess'. (You'll have to search his posts for 'significance' or such terms to see his work on this sort of thing.) 

Climate scientists have a rule of thumb that trends that are less then about 30 years may not be statistically significant.  Trends (or changed trends) spanning less than a decade are seldom significant.  See for example, Tamino's numerous posts on the 'global warming pause' following 1998 el nino (e.g. here (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/)).

Rich, there are other aspects of your faith in NASA data that are misplaced, there being very many known and unknown (think of Cheney's various categories, all relevant) influences on accuracy and precision of measurements, what is being measured, and how those measurements are interpreted. 
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 09, 2019, 06:11:29 AM
Anybody who claims wiggles on graphs of measurements made of natural phenomena are not random, will have to prove it mathematically.  Tamino (https://tamino.wordpress.com/) has a blog where he regularly shows data to be significant or not with relation to a 'visual first guess'. (You'll have to search his posts for 'significance' or such terms to see his work on this sort of thing.) 

Climate scientists have a rule of thumb that trends that are less then about 30 years may not be statistically significant.  Trends (or changed trends) spanning less than a decade are seldom significant.  See for example, Tamino's numerous posts on the 'global warming pause' following 1998 el nino (e.g. here (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/)).

Rich, there are other aspects of your faith in NASA data that are misplaced, there being very many known and unknown (think of Cheney's various categories, all relevant) influences on accuracy and precision of measurements, what is being measured, and how those measurements are interpreted.

There is  difference between saying that there is some randomness in the underlying natural phenomena (which I agree with) and saying that the resulting data is random.

The random element in nature plays a part in determining the true result of GMSL. There is only one true GMSL at a given point in time. The data that NASA provides is a function of the true GMSL and the accuracy of the measurement. Period.

Is the NASA data perfect? No. They provide a margin of error on their measurement of 0.80mm. Is there a better source? Not to my knowledge.

In the absence of any specific reason to doubt the NASA data and in the presence of lots of other data points which cogently fit the picture of accelerating SLR, I'm going to accept that the data paints a materially accurate picture of SLR. I'm going to use it to help me understand what is going in the world and try to help highlight a potential evolving risk for others.

If we wait until until we have 100% proof that the SLR is fundamentally accelerating in order to take action, we lose time to prepare. If we prepare for something that doesn't ultimately materialize, we waste resources. There is a risk / reward profile associated with waiting as well as with making projections. In the absence of a crystal ball, what do we do?

My choice is to try and add value and get people to think critically about the data that is out there. I'm highlighting something different than other people are highlighting for a reason and I'm encouraging people to kick the tires.

SLR during most of the 20th century averaged 1.5mm / yr. From the satellite era until 2010, the average was 3 mm / yr. Since 2010, things certainly seem to have picked up. The intervals such as 2011-2015 are not yet statistically proven to be indicative of what will happen going forward. That proof of what will happen in the future can only come with more time. But at the same time, we can ask ourselves if we have any experience with intervals like these. The answer is no.

The only parallels we can look at is the paleo-record and we have lost ice a lost faster than 8 mm / year in relatively recent geologic times.

Are we in the early stages of hockey stick type progression of SLR? I can't say for sure. If we were in the early stages of a hockey stick type progression, what would the curve look like? I think it might look a lot like the data that NASA is presenting.

My personal process of trial and error is to try and eliminate the possibility that 8mm / year represents a new baseline in the absence of specific negative SLR events such as El Nino. The data doesn't let me do it.

The 8mm / year was reported by NASA from 2011 to 2015, paused for the 2016 El Nino and resumed for all of 2017 and half of 2018 so far. I'm actually quite interested in someone explaining a system that produces that result and then reverts back to a lower baseline. No one has been able to do that so far.

In the absence of anyone being able to provide a cogent alternative argument for the emerging slope of the SLR curve, I think people should take the possibility of an emerging hockey stick seriously.





Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on May 09, 2019, 06:32:39 AM
The 8mm / year was reported by NASA from 2011 to 2015, paused for the 2016 El Nino and resumed for all of 2017 and half of 2018 so far. I'm actually quite interested in someone explaining a system that produces that result and then reverts back to a lower baseline. No one has been able to do that so far.
2011 was a sharp low point in the data, which partially explains the higher rate from 2011 onward.
2015-2016 thermal expansion in the run-up to the monster El Nino.
A bit of noise.
Despite these points, as posted earlier I can see a new trendline emerging. However, it is about 5 mm/year and certainly not 8 mm/y at this stage.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 09, 2019, 06:47:02 AM
Rich,
Quote
the resulting data is random
I sure hope you didn't think I said the resulting NASA data was random!
Quote
There is only one true GMSL at a given point in time.
The concept of "only one true xxx" may be true in philosophy, mathematics or pure science, but it is not ever true in physical science.  At one level, it is all statistics.
Quote
proof that the SLR is fundamentally accelerating
SLR is accelerating (on average - in places it is statistically significantly decelerating [i.e., SL is dropping] - see this SLR thread (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,526.msg198378.html#msg198378)).  See Tamino's thread, for examples of the maths.  But don't ever use only a few years of data to demonstrate it, unless you have a specific physical explanation for the change. (Even then it is not likely to be statistically significant, but would be grounds for a theory to watch.) In different places the SLR rate is different; we know some of the reasons (gravity, currents, winds).

I've gotta go to bed, but much else of what you wrote was fine.


Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 09, 2019, 06:53:39 AM

2011 was a sharp low point in the data, which partially explains the higher rate from 2011 onward.
2015-2016 thermal expansion in the run-up to the monster El Nino.
A bit of noise.
Despite these points, as posted earlier I can see a new trendline emerging. However, it is about 5 mm/year and certainly not 8 mm/y at this stage.

My understanding is that the 2011 dip was due to a rare and massive precipitation event which transferred water from the ocean to land. If you can demonstrate a time frame for the redistribution of the water from the 2011 event and above average SLR in the following years, please do or otherwise indicate that you're just guessing.

https://skepticalscience.com/Extreme-Flooding-In-2010-2011-Lowers-Global-Sea-Level.html

As far as the pattern of any El Nino, can you please explain how an El Nino causes thermal expansion? My understanding is that an El Nino results in a thermal contraction in the ocean as indicated in the NASA SLR charts of the major El Nino's of 1998 and 2016. Heat is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere resulting in record atmospheric temps in those years as well.

Where is the source of the extra heat coming into the ocean that would cause an expansion?? My understanding is that the heat is already in the ocean and being vented to the atmosphere as part of the El Nino process.

fwiw - I think your 5 mm / year is a reasonable guesstimate of the current net run rate. We can't really guess how often an El Nino is going to come along and reset things.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Paddy on May 09, 2019, 07:14:44 AM
Assuming no massive disruptive events:

2030 population: Approx 8.5 billion people
Annual population growth: Approx 70 million people per year.

(These population figures are assuming that total births would be the same as today at 140m / year, and that deaths would have risen gradually to about 70m / year due to the population ageing).

Global temperature: About 0.1 to 0.2 degrees celsius warmer than today (taking e.g. a five year average to smooth out annual or subannual variations like El Nino etc).

Arctic sea ice extent: about 2m to 3m square km at minimum and 13m to 14m at max.

Sea level: Approx 5cm higher than today

Human behavioural changes: Renewables making up the majority of new power plant construction, but the bulk of power production still being done with old non-renewable plants. Similarly, the majority of new car sales, especially in high income countries, being either electric or hybrid, but the bulk of cars on the world's roads being older ICE cars. Global oil demand still trending upwards, but slower than before, at about 110m barrels of crude oil a day.

Food prices: trending upwards. Number of people going hungry also trending slowly upwards again, reversing improvements in the first half of the century.

Am I an optimist or a pessimist?  Not sure.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: sidd on May 09, 2019, 07:31:42 AM
Re: sea level budget

doi:10.17882/54854

GIA and TWS are important sources of uncertainty.

"The main uncertainty in the GIA contribution to ocean mass change estimates, apart from the general uncertainty in ice history and Earth mechanical properties, originates from the importance of changes in the orientation of the Earth’s rotation axis (Chambers et al., 2010; Tamisiea, 2011). Different choices in implementing the so-called “rotational feedback” lead to significant changes in the resulting GIA contribution to GRACE estimates. The issue of properly accounting for rotational effects has not been settled yet (Mitrovica et al., 2005; Peltier and Luthcke, 2009; Mitrovica and Wahr, 2011; Martinec and Hagedoorn, 2014)."

"However, when looking at the sea-level budget over the GRACE time span and using the GRACE-based TWS, we find a rather large positive residual trend (> 0.5 mm yr −1 ) that needs to be explained. Since GRACE-based ocean mass is supposed to represent all mass terms, one may want to attribute this residual trend to an additional contribution of the deep ocean to the abyssal contribution already taken into account here, but possibly underestimated because of incomplete monitoring by current observing sys- tems. If such a large positive contribution from the deep ocean (meaning ocean warming) is real (which is unlikely, given the high implied heat storage), this has to be confirmed by independent approaches ..."

Nice paper. Cazenave et al have been doing this forawhile. Open access, chekitout.

I attach fig 5 from Gutknecht et al. at EGU 2018 which may be found at

https://presentations.copernicus.org/EGU2018-9983_presentation.pdf

sidd
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: KiwiGriff on May 09, 2019, 10:02:39 AM
Hi all long time lurker who thought he could finally add some value.

Tamino has done a few posts on sea level.
in this one he gives the present rate as about 4.8mm a year.
 https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/sea-level-acceleration-2/
His  post also discuses a paper were the researchers estimated, and removed, the influence of ENSO/PDO as well as the major volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.
Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era
R. S. Nerem Et al.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022
Their result was 4.3 mm/y accelerating at 0.084 mm/y2.

2030?
0.3C warmer 0.2C from CO2 induced AGW  0.1C due to a reduction of aerosols in china .
BOE  in the arctic has happened at lest once .
Grounding line retreat in one of the major antarctic glaciers has made the world really start to take notice  of accelerating sea level rise.
The USA has been hit by a historic cat five storm.
We  only just start to see the keeling curve stop accelerating.
The Gt barrier reef is for all intents dead and the resulting collapse of  marine ecology's is showing though out the Western Pacific.
Periodic Food shortages due to weather extremes have caused the collapse of at lest one nation in both Africa and the middle east.
More country's fall to the far right in a reaction to social economic pressures.
We are still arguing about if AGW is real with a faction of deniers on line.
The loud political talk about addressing emissions  is still not resulting in sufficient action towards net Zero CO2.


 
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on May 09, 2019, 01:06:33 PM
Paddy said:
 Global oil demand still trending upwards, but slower than before, at about 110m barrels of crude oil a day.

I am not so sure about this. It might be my old PO background, but I doubt shale fracking + oil sands can continue rising to that point, and I understand conventional has already peaked.
Also, I would be pleasantly surprised if the temperature rise held down to a tenth to a fifth of a degree Celsius.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: magnamentis on May 09, 2019, 01:50:25 PM
can we in general agree that even if measurements sometimes need improvement and/or at a later point are proven not that perfect, that as long as a method of measurement remains unaltered we can compare the data to make out a trend and an very close to factual scale ?

examples for this would be snow hight, ice-thickness, ice volume, and sea-levels.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 09, 2019, 02:37:12 PM

2011 was a sharp low point in the data, which partially explains the higher rate from 2011 onward.
2015-2016 thermal expansion in the run-up to the monster El Nino.
A bit of noise.
Despite these points, as posted earlier I can see a new trendline emerging. However, it is about 5 mm/year and certainly not 8 mm/y at this stage.

My understanding is that the 2011 dip was due to a rare and massive precipitation event which transferred water from the ocean to land. If you can demonstrate a time frame for the redistribution of the water from the 2011 event and above average SLR in the following years, please do or otherwise indicate that you're just guessing.

https://skepticalscience.com/Extreme-Flooding-In-2010-2011-Lowers-Global-Sea-Level.html

As far as the pattern of any El Nino, can you please explain how an El Nino causes thermal expansion? My understanding is that an El Nino results in a thermal contraction in the ocean as indicated in the NASA SLR charts of the major El Nino's of 1998 and 2016. Heat is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere resulting in record atmospheric temps in those years as well.

Where is the source of the extra heat coming into the ocean that would cause an expansion?? My understanding is that the heat is already in the ocean and being vented to the atmosphere as part of the El Nino process.

fwiw - I think your 5 mm / year is a reasonable guesstimate of the current net run rate. We can't really guess how often an El Nino is going to come along and reset things.

If your understanding of the year 2011 event is correct, and the event is rare, that is even more reason not to use that as your starting point in calculating trends.  That would be akin to calculating an Arctic sea ice trend starting with the 2012 minimum.  While the trend would be accurate, based on the data, it would not be representative of the system, as a whole.  Would you accept someone's calculation that the minimum sea ice has been increasing at 67k sq. km annually, based on the last seven years of data, even though the calculation is correct?  By the way, since October, 2015, NASA data has shown that sea level has risen 6.4mm, which calculates to 2.1mm / year.  Does this mean that sea level rise is slowing?  All this does is show the folly of using short-term data, in lieu of longer trends.

NASA has stated that the current sea level rise is 3.3mm / year, which is an increase from 3.2 from their trend in 2012, and 3.0 back in 2005.  This does show an increase, but nowhere near 8mm / year (or even 5).
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Paddy on May 09, 2019, 03:11:55 PM
Paddy said:
 Global oil demand still trending upwards, but slower than before, at about 110m barrels of crude oil a day.

I am not so sure about this. It might be my old PO background, but I doubt shale fracking + oil sands can continue rising to that point, and I understand conventional has already peaked.
Also, I would be pleasantly surprised if the temperature rise held down to a tenth to a fifth of a degree Celsius.

Good point on oil production. Even without a total inability to meet demand, high prices could indeed choke demand in the coming years.

And yes, my assumption of near term temperature rise does assume a fairly gradual acceleration from the recent rate. I hope that I'm right, but I'm not certain.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 09, 2019, 03:26:13 PM

If your understanding of the year 2011 event is correct, and the event is rare, that is even more reason not to use that as your starting point in calculating trends.

I don't use the 2011 event as part of the 8 mm / year calculation. The 8 mm / year interval of 4.5 years begins after the 2011 event ends.

That would be akin to calculating an Arctic sea ice trend starting with the 2012 minimum.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. Arctic Sea Ice is an annual ebb and flow depending upon highly volatile weather variables. Change is GMSL is an incremental process and largely a function of change in ocean temperature which is the primary driver of both thermal expansion and polar ice loss.

 
By the way, since October, 2015, NASA data has shown that sea level has risen 6.4mm, which calculates to 2.1mm / year. 

I've only pointed out about 10 times that the reason for the low average in the last few years is the 2016 El Nino and that this is expected.

I'm making an argument for a run rate with and without an El Nino. You're inability or unwillingness to speak to that nuance is suggesting that you're not interacting in good faith. Let's agree to disagree and move on.


NASA has stated that the current sea level rise is 3.3mm / year, which is an increase from 3.2 from their trend in 2012, and 3.0 back in 2005.  This does show an increase, but nowhere near 8mm / year (or even 5).

How about we make a bet?

I'll bet you that the next time we have a 12 month interval with ENSO cycle which is neutral or negative (not leaning toward El Nino), that GMSL increases by > 6mm in that 12 month period. I'll offer you even money.



Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 09, 2019, 03:48:46 PM

If your understanding of the year 2011 event is correct, and the event is rare, that is even more reason not to use that as your starting point in calculating trends.

I don't use the 2011 event as part of the 8 mm / year calculation. The 8 mm / year interval of 4.5 years begins after the 2011 event ends.


Previously, you stated that, "According to NASA, from April 2011 to October 2015, SLR rose 36mm."  That is obviously how you calculated your 8mm / year trend.  The latest entry on the NASA site is December, 2018.  If you calculate your trend from December, 2011, SLR is 4.7mm /year, but if you calculate it from December, 2012, SLR is 3.8mm / year.  That is the problem with short-term statistics, selectively choosing end points, can greatly change the data trend.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

I see my analogy was completely lost on you.  No surprise.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on May 09, 2019, 04:32:58 PM
Hi all long time lurker who thought he could finally add some value.
Welcome KiwiGriff. Great first post.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 09, 2019, 04:42:50 PM
Welcome to the ASIF, Griff (?),
Thanks for the specific Tamino-sourced links.  Many (most?) of his posts are interesting and 'fun' to read - he makes climate-science statistics (appear) accessible.  He is certainly my go-to person on SLR maths.

You are braver than me in outlining predicted 2030 conditions!
Tor

Hi all long time lurker who thought he could finally add some value.

Tamino has done a few posts on sea level.
in this one he gives the present rate as about 4.8mm a year.
 https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/sea-level-acceleration-2/
His  post also discuses a paper were the researchers estimated, and removed, the influence of ENSO/PDO as well as the major volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.
Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era
R. S. Nerem Et al.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022
Their result was 4.3 mm/y accelerating at 0.084 mm/y2.

...
 
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 09, 2019, 05:12:42 PM
Welcome to the ASIF, Griff (?),
Thanks for the specific Tamino-sourced links.  Many (most?) of his posts are interesting and 'fun' to read - he makes climate-science statistics (appear) accessible.  He is certainly my go-to person on SLR maths.

You are braver than me in outlining predicted 2030 conditions!
Tor

Hi all long time lurker who thought he could finally add some value.

Tamino has done a few posts on sea level.
in this one he gives the present rate as about 4.8mm a year.
 https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/sea-level-acceleration-2/
His  post also discuses a paper were the researchers estimated, and removed, the influence of ENSO/PDO as well as the major volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.
Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era
R. S. Nerem Et al.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022
Their result was 4.3 mm/y accelerating at 0.084 mm/y2.

...
 

Thanks for sharing KiwiGriff. 4.8mm / year (net) seems more reasonable.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: magnamentis on May 09, 2019, 05:23:45 PM
[quote author=Klondike Kat link=topic=2651.msg198505#msg198505 date=1557
I don't use the 2011 event as part of the 8 mm / year calculation. The 8 mm / year interval of 4.5 years begins after the 2011 event ends.

hi rich, it's very helpful to carefully study some user's attitude over time and then consider this:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2651.msg198451.html#msg198451

this is what helps to not throw pearls to the "void" LOL just to avoid the worse term and keep a level of peace of mind.

some people will generally and always contradict/oppose anything someone writes, no matter what, once they got into that gear, no capability to listen and consider what others have to say and find out what's true, what was said and what was meant, in other words, the truth.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 09, 2019, 05:52:59 PM

If your understanding of the year 2011 event is correct, and the event is rare, that is even more reason not to use that as your starting point in calculating trends.

I don't use the 2011 event as part of the 8 mm / year calculation. The 8 mm / year interval of 4.5 years begins after the 2011 event ends.


Previously, you stated that, "According to NASA, from April 2011 to October 2015, SLR rose 36mm."  That is obviously how you calculated your 8mm / year trend.  The latest entry on the NASA site is December, 2018.  If you calculate your trend from December, 2011, SLR is 4.7mm /year, but if you calculate it from December, 2012, SLR is 3.8mm / year.  That is the problem with short-term statistics, selectively choosing end points, can greatly change the data trend.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

I see my analogy was completely lost on you.  No surprise.

I offered you what seemed to be a good deal for you and you passed. Seems like maybe you agree with me and don't want to admit it.

A good theory will hold up to an experiment. I'm saying that I have enough confidence in my theory to bet the GMSL will go up > 6mm in the next 12 month interval which is ENSO neutral or negative.

Doesn't look like you want any part of that. Since you labeled me a "cherry picker" right out of the gate, I have to needle you back. For what it's worth, I appreciate your being a foil here. We've beaten this little debate to death at this point and reinforced for most of the people reading along a greater understanding of the recent acceleration in GMSL.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on May 09, 2019, 06:00:17 PM
I recall back in grade school Earth Science I saw a map in the textbook of elevation/subsidence of the North American Continent. I remember the East Coast and Gulf Coast were subsiding, and The North and West were rising.
How long, given this and SLR, do cities like Miami and New Orleans have left?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 09, 2019, 06:13:52 PM
[quote author=Klondike Kat link=topic=2651.msg198505#msg198505 date=1557
I don't use the 2011 event as part of the 8 mm / year calculation. The 8 mm / year interval of 4.5 years begins after the 2011 event ends.

hi rich, it's very helpful to carefully study some user's attitude over time and then consider this:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2651.msg198451.html#msg198451

this is what helps to not throw pearls to the "void" LOL just to avoid the worse term and keep a level of peace of mind.

some people will generally and always contradict/oppose anything someone writes, no matter what, once they got into that gear, no capability to listen and consider what others have to say and find out what's true, what was said and what was meant, in other words, the truth.

Thanks for your input. I think it's time to let go, but I don't think it was a waste. People who tried following along in the discussion maybe look at the GMSL NASA data a little bit differently now.

If we step back to the reason I jumped in....this is a thread where people are offering guesses about what 2030 will look like. I'm offering SLR as a key indicator of something that might be world changing as it a) progresses and b) we get better at predicting it.

It's an exciting field of science and their is a huge amount of resource being applied to understand it. We're going to learn a LOT in the next decade.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 09, 2019, 06:46:56 PM
Thanks Rich.
Looking at the chart, adding my unscientific trendline, I can say I definitely see a change at some point in the past few years.
I could see how thermal expansion during the run-up to an El-Nino would be compensated by a slowdown afterwards. But the net trend in the past tended to revert to the previous trendline. This time it didn't.

I see the same thing. There is no doubt that sea level rise is accelerating which should come as no surprise since the contributing processes (melting, ice mass loss, glacier speed up and calving) are all accelerating as well.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rich on May 09, 2019, 06:48:36 PM
I recall back in grade school Earth Science I saw a map in the textbook of elevation/subsidence of the North American Continent. I remember the East Coast and Gulf Coast were subsiding, and The North and West were rising.
How long, given this and SLR, do cities like Miami and New Orleans have left?

This is a great question. No simple answer. Miami will also have more rapid SLR than GMSL due to any slowing in the AMOC and both Miami /  NO will have more SLR due to loss of gravitational force at the poles.

A big part of the answer is going to be how long the federal government is going to plug the financial deficits of these coastal regions while they're in the process of going under. Coastal cities are going to go bankrupt while there is still substantial useful life in portions of them.  In an effort to keep things orderly, they are probably going to try and stagger the migration to fit the buildout of the infrastructure that will replace these communities.

There is going to be an agency like FEMA with a very prominent role in running the country. We're going to have WW II type mobilization. We're going to be providing assistance to Mexico as well so that we don't have a real border crisis. Hopefully, we won't have too many wars to fight. The rest of the world will be in a similar boat.

For a city like Miami Beach, I'm going to guess they go bankrupt around 2040, but people are living there until 2060.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on May 09, 2019, 06:56:55 PM
In one year at least, the Nares Strait will run out of ice to export, as will the Fram.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 09, 2019, 06:58:09 PM
Paddy said:
 Global oil demand still trending upwards, but slower than before, at about 110m barrels of crude oil a day.

I am not so sure about this. It might be my old PO background, but I doubt shale fracking + oil sands can continue rising to that point, and I understand conventional has already peaked.
Also, I would be pleasantly surprised if the temperature rise held down to a tenth to a fifth of a degree Celsius.

Good point on oil production. Even without a total inability to meet demand, high prices could indeed choke demand in the coming years.

And yes, my assumption of near term temperature rise does assume a fairly gradual acceleration from the recent rate. I hope that I'm right, but I'm not certain.

High prices will put downward pressure on demand but will simultaneously result in more unconventional sources being brought to market as they become profitable while also increasing the amount of available reserves which is calculated based on the oil be recoverable economically.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Shared Humanity on May 09, 2019, 07:02:36 PM
I recall back in grade school Earth Science I saw a map in the textbook of elevation/subsidence of the North American Continent. I remember the East Coast and Gulf Coast were subsiding, and The North and West were rising.
How long, given this and SLR, do cities like Miami and New Orleans have left?

Much of Broward and Dade Counties will be evacuated by the end of the century. Evacuations of certain areas will begin in earnest by 2050.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on May 10, 2019, 03:23:39 AM
Quote
Miami will also have more rapid SLR than GMSL

GMSL is a misleading number. Just like the poles warm faster than the equator, some places will have higher SLR than GMSL and some places will have lower SLR. It is likely there are outliers both ways.

Then there are tides. Then there are stronger hurricanes multiplying SLR and tides.  And then you have all kinds of weather disasters sucking up all the new climate adaptation money.

Our chances are not good. The fact that even our smartest people think this is a problem for 20-30 years from now makes the problem so much worse.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bluice on May 10, 2019, 11:25:49 PM
I'm pretty confident that the major things happening before 2030 will be the ones that are directly caused by humans instead of climate related. What makes AGW such a nasty problem is its slow progress and accumulating effects. When things get really bad it will be too late to prevent them, but it's unlikely we will be there during the next decade.

1990's gave us the fall and breakup of the Soviet bloc, unified Europe and the Internet, just to mention a few.
2000's gave us 9/11, American led wars in the Middle East, turboboosted globalisation, the rise of China and the financial crisis.
2010's gave us Arab Spring, resurgent Russia, the POTUS Trump and the mess of brexit.

I'm not even trying to guess what will happen in 2020's but it will be huge and we will not expect it.

Before 2030 SLR will probably increase somewhat, the Arctic may or may not have a year below 1 million km2 at the September minimum, weather will get weirder and weather related disasters bigger and more common. I hope global emissions will peak before 2030 but at the moment it's difficult to believe this will happen.

I think there will be a year before 2030 when weather related poor crops in certain major agricultural regions cause food prices to rise high enough to cause significant political upheavals among the world's poor and unstable countries and their peoples. It could be debated whether Arab Spring already falls into this category, but what I mean is a chain of events that makes such a debate meaningless. Farmers need certain predictability to choose right crops and farming methods and constant change in climate and local weather will at some point make this extremely difficult.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: liefde on May 13, 2019, 12:22:43 AM
I'm pretty confident that the major things happening before 2030 will be the ones that are directly caused by humans instead of climate related.
Most likely. There are a couple of facts heavily being overlooked;

We've been deleting about a million trees per hour 24/7/365 ever since the early 1970s. Not replenished, not replaced. That's a forcing to be reckoned with. There are currently 300+ billion (yes, nine zeros) fewer trees than there were when I was born. This is a simple fact of being human. As long as humans are not back to 2 billion in total, we're gonna be deleting too many trees to even come close to a sustainable state.
This fact alone kills organic life at a rate we can't fix. I'd not be surprised if most insects will be gone by 2027. The human bred bumblebees will probably prevail a while longer, but the mere fact that others are gone will impact all food-chains on the planet, including that in the ocean.
Plantlife doesn't like too much heat. It stops growing.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 13, 2019, 10:45:59 AM
The energy from photosynthesis indeed goes, crossing specific environmental stresspoints, into repairing damage of plant tissues restricting growth, until the machinery for photosynthesis (if I recall correctly, there are 4 main types, adapted to certain growing zones) itself breaks down and the plant dies.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 13, 2019, 03:37:35 PM
Agreed.  A recent scientific american article stated that deforestation increases atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations more than all the world's cars and trucks combined.  Considering that roughly half of the [pre-human] forested acreage has been cut down, any effort to stem industrial carbon dioxide output may not ever reach zero.  There simply are not enough trees remained to compensate.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: RikW on May 13, 2019, 04:02:23 PM
well, 'just' plant more trees;

if every 'worker' in the usa/ europe plants 1 tree per day we have reforested the world in 2 years.

Just imagine every adult you know planting a tree daily for 2 years in a row...
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on May 13, 2019, 04:21:56 PM
What my limited experience with trees tells me is that it's not just a matter of planting trees. The right circumstances must exist for years before they gain resilience. Even after they do gain resilience changes in climate and disease can get them.

To be clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't plant trees because they must be tended for years . I'm saying we must systematically plant and tend them.

Besides the CO2 storing capabilities they can lower local temperature significantly. (They are also beautiful and attract birds but that is OT)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on May 13, 2019, 06:38:20 PM
What my limited experience with trees tells me is that it's not just a matter of planting trees. The right circumstances must exist for years before they gain resilience. Even after they do gain resilience changes in climate and disease can get them.

I do have multiyear experience in planting forests.

Actually, not much tending is needed. We planted many hectares of oak (mixed with some othe species for diversity), which is pretty much the slowest growing tree in the temperate zone (except for yew, never plant yew :) . Anyway we planted them from acorns, which is the cheapest solution. You need to cut the weeds 2x per year for 4-5 years, after that there is absoultely nothing to do for 100 years. Total cost: about 2000 euros per hectare, ie. 200 000 euros per sq km.Planting and (tending for 4-5 yrs) 1 000 000 sq km, a huge number, would cost theoretically 200 billion EUR, which is 1% of Europe's GDP. The EU is 4.4 million sq kms. So it would cost about 1% of GDP to reforest 20+% of its area. That is nothing. It is extremely cheap.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on May 13, 2019, 07:48:45 PM
While I am all for reforestation, and would love to take the time and plant trees every day, the main issue that pops to mind is land. Where would I plant so many trees? Between me and my wife, nearly 1500 trees over the next two years? Around here you can barely find space to plant one tree, except in the desert. Too many people, too little left for all else.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on May 13, 2019, 09:35:11 PM
"Around here you can barely find space to plant one tree, except in the desert."

You probably all know about the biotic pump theory. Basically it postulates that by greening (reforesting) the desert you can change the climate (and your country has also plenty of experience in desalination and dripline irrigation). Worth a try. You might truly get back the Promised Land flowing with milk and honey  :)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: liefde on May 14, 2019, 10:11:19 PM
well, 'just' plant more trees;

if every 'worker' in the usa/ europe plants 1 tree per day we have reforested the world in 2 years.
You'll have a lot of trees younger than 2 years. Pretty useless as far as CO2 sequestration goes. And who's going to 'create' the seeds and plants for that effort out of thin air? Where do you think those young shoots come from?
Besides, the deleting of about a million per day will only continue and grow in number (because those planted trees take up room intended for crops or housing, or what have you, and nobody has room to plant those trees anyway. If every person would need to plant 1 tree per day, where do you want to put them?
Seriously, grow a clue.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Klondike Kat on May 14, 2019, 10:22:27 PM
well, 'just' plant more trees;

if every 'worker' in the usa/ europe plants 1 tree per day we have reforested the world in 2 years.
You'll have a lot of trees younger than 2 years. Pretty useless as far as CO2 sequestration goes. And who's going to 'create' the seeds and plants for that effort out of thin air? Where do you think those young shoots come from?
Besides, the deleting of about a million per day will only continue and grow in number (because those planted trees take up room intended for crops or housing, or what have you, and nobody has room to plant those trees anyway. If every person would need to plant 1 tree per day, where do you want to put them?
Seriously, grow a clue.

He was putting it in perspective!  Even by your account, that would result in a net increase.  The saplings would only increase their sequestration ability.  Hardly useless.  Your insulting post is not very helpful,
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: sidd on May 14, 2019, 11:22:05 PM
I have planted thousands of trees in my life. You have to be careful, consider the tree, the land and the climate to come. I am glad to say that the majority are doing well, and i try to go visit them as often as I may.

I must say i have removed hundreds of invasive trees as well ...

sidd
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on May 14, 2019, 11:22:40 PM
You need to cut the weeds 2x per year for 4-5 years, after that there is absoultely nothing to do for 100 years.

Thanks for your experience. That experience applies to an unchanging temperate climate. In warmer, wetter places 6 months without weeding is likely too long for trees that are not hardy.

 Anywhere the climate is changing (everywhere), things like heatwaves can dry the soil and seriously hurt young trees. Weird weather might bring disease.

However, while the climate conditions remain favorable, trees require little maintenance.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 15, 2019, 07:35:04 AM
As we're heading towards warmer climates, gardeners might do bemeficial work for ecosystems by transporting southerly native plants. I mean, by routine, I have to either cut down or move several elm and maple saplings every other year. If there was a northerly location free for planting these I might well do a trip to let them live.organizing such a system that would allow easy migration of plants by human activity is though a huge undertaking. Also the warmer northerly plots are usually taken by local gardeners. I have a friend who has one of the Finland's northernmost tree-size oaks growing beside the southern wall of their house in Rovaniemi and this sort of thing should imho be commonplace. It's not of course the northernmost in the world, the Norwegian coastal winters allow oak to grow there very far north.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on May 15, 2019, 08:00:39 AM
You need to cut the weeds 2x per year for 4-5 years, after that there is absoultely nothing to do for 100 years.

Thanks for your experience. That experience applies to an unchanging temperate climate. In warmer, wetter places 6 months without weeding is likely too long for trees that are not hardy.

 Anywhere the climate is changing (everywhere), things like heatwaves can dry the soil and seriously hurt young trees. Weird weather might bring disease.


There's truth in what you say. However, let's not forget, that trees are "programmed" to grow through weeds and bushes (and drought and torrential rains, etc.). In nature, noone cuts weeds, yet if you leave a field alone for 30-50 yrs, I guarantee you that there will be a forest by the end of that. (I "lost" some good agricultural land to that much quicker than that!)

The only question is - and this relates to what Pmt says - what to plant? We need to plant trees that are already marginally hardy and will have the right environment in the next 20-100 yrs. I have doubts about the models getting the precipitation/temperature pattern right, so the solution is probably planting a mix, and let the trees fight it out.

As for what liefde said "And who's going to 'create' the seeds and plants for that effort out of thin air?", as I said we planted (mixed)oak forests from seed (acorn). We literally planted hundreds of thousands of acorns, and I can guarantee you that there is enough seed to plant the whole planet with trees.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: sidd on May 15, 2019, 09:22:23 AM
Re: gardeners might do bemeficial work for ecosystems by transporting southerly native plants

I know of DNR (Department of Natural Resources) and other forestry officials already doing that in NE USA. I imagine that is being done elsewhere, but i will have to talk to people out west.

sidd
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Archimid on May 15, 2019, 01:25:02 PM

There's truth in what you say. However, let's not forget, that trees are "programmed" to grow through weeds and bushes (and drought and torrential rains, etc.).


There are hardy trees and there are tender trees. Both have limits of growth related to temperature, humidity and sunlight. Trees die all the time in nature. You only get to see the ones that survive.

Quote
In nature, noone cuts weeds, yet if you leave a field alone for 30-50 yrs, I guarantee you that there will be a forest by the end of that. (I "lost" some good agricultural land to that much quicker than that!)

Yes but the trees that grow are the species that can survive and thrive on the climate of the tree, not necesarilly a pre-selected tree.  If the wrong trees grows, then fires, disease or drought remove the wrong trees and the right trees for the environment survive.

Quote
The only question is - and this relates to what Pmt says - what to plant?

I'm pretty sure that we can agree that there is not one solution to the what to planet problem but many. Local architecture, local climate and micro-climate must be considered before choosing the right tree for the right location. Choosing the right tree for the right location shouldn't be a problem at all. The problem happens when the climate changes.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on June 15, 2019, 08:28:21 PM
Here is a documentary on the world of 2060, just a generation later:
http://www.shortcommons.com/2019/06/documentary-can-earth-still-be-saved.html
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 17, 2019, 09:01:01 PM
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/no-climate-change-will-not-end-the-world-in-12-years/?amp
Earth isn't ending in 12 years. It didn't end at Y2K or when the Mayan calendar predicted the collapse of civilization in 2012. Earth, as a whole, will be okay—for at least another few billion years. What's less settled is how humans and the rest of biodiversity on the planet will fare in the decades and centuries to come. That's up to us and I hope we work to highlight hope over Armageddon.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on August 18, 2019, 05:37:35 AM
"Earth isn't ending in 12 years. It didn't end at Y2K or when the Mayan calendar predicted the collapse of civilization in 2012"

That's reassuring, pfew  ::)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: kassy on August 18, 2019, 05:29:53 PM
That quote from the blog was not the most helpful (the mayan thing always annoys me because of the hollywood filter. It was the end of their grand age number 5 or so so it deals with more interesting concepts then a hollywood disaster movie but YMMV).


(a friend of hers is worried because of)
Time's latest cover story, entitled "Our Sinking Planet."
...
I am concerned too, but it's different. There's no question that our climate reality is dire, but having worked at the intersection of science and climate challenges for decades, the new barrage of what I've come to call doomsday porn is perplexing.


Haven´t read the Time piece but they are not that prone to doomsday porn. The author talks about all kinds of technological and science progress. These things will help but one of the big current problems is the lack of pace on the international policy level. The politicians are still doing much kicking the can down the road while paying lip service to vague commitments (or much worse).

This should be protested much more and that is one thing she does not even mention.

Science goes only so far. Solutions only work if you implement them. Etc.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 11, 2019, 09:16:17 PM
What Sydney is really throwing in the rubbish
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/what-sydney-is-really-throwing-in-the-rubbish-20190812-p52gae.html
Quote
s Sydney's population edges towards 5.8 million by 2030, we are producing waste at a rate six times our population growth. NSW is the second-highest per-capita producer of waste in the world, a government inquiry has found.

How Sydney deals with its waste - along with water security and further impacts of climate change - will be among the most critical environmental issues it tackles in the coming decade.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 18, 2019, 06:52:45 PM
Fevers, rashes and three months of illness: the health risks facing a growing Sydney
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/fevers-rashes-and-three-months-of-illness-the-health-risks-facing-a-growing-sydney-20190823-p52k55.html
Quote
Emma Guiney has sworn off holiday destinations with mosquito-borne diseases. As the climate changes, they will likely be on her doorstep. Such diseases are one of the many health challenges Sydney faces as its population booms in the next decade.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on December 11, 2019, 01:51:08 PM
Expect to see a lot of predictions, forecasts and projections for 2030 in the next several weeks. Could help get a glimpse of how things will develop over the course of the 2020s.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: rboyd on December 24, 2019, 03:23:53 AM
450ppm CO2, 700 ppm CO2e, 2 degrees centigrade, no Arctic Ice in August (I may be too positive here) ... so much to look forward to. And then a slightly less bright sky as the geo-engineering kicks in.

And....Soylent Green is People!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99I1BXREPO4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99I1BXREPO4)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on December 24, 2019, 06:22:06 AM
10 more years of all life beng pushed down the stairs, deeper into hell.
(Why? Just so the obcenely rich can go on with their game of competing who's got the most of a certain abstract number)

The Amazon turned into a carbon source.
Mass extinction kicked into a higher gear. Avalanch of ecosystem collapses. Last elephant died in June 2027.
Storms of my children. Global infrastructure getting hammered.
Permafrost emitting 15 GT CO2 per year. Methane? NOx?
Closure of coal plants and cleaner fuel for shipping mean strong aerosol reduction and resulting temperature rises.
Australia has no forests left to burn. The trees that are left are dying and burning all over the planet.
Many small-scale wars over potable water. Masses of poor people have died. Human rights have been changed into corporate rights.
Unmanned wars in space have destroyed the insane childish spacecraft-dreams of the obscenely rich.
U.S.A. A.I. killbots apparently did have secret software 'backdoors' and were rendered useless. Hackers were able to completely sabotage country-wide crucial infrastructure.
Superbugs, high risk of pandemic.
Masses of people fleeing from the large cities because of safety, potable water and food. In many cases exacerbated by excessive heat and/or flooding.
And of course a myriad of unforeseen consequences and "things happening earlier than expected".
The start of the great homo sapiens dying off.

I think reality will prove to be worse than the above because I left out a lot of trends and current developments. And many threats are interconnected.

Social collapse before 2030? I think it is very likely.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: blumenkraft on December 24, 2019, 07:38:21 AM
2030:

Since the ending of the Sanders presidency in 2028, democratic institutions are stronger than ever. The US is on its way to zero emissions. The green new deal is working. Because millions of additional worker where needed refugees from all over the world found a new home in the US. The big topic everyone is talking about these days is the weakening concept of arbitrary nation-states. The UN is slowly transitioning into a global government.

While Asia already is at zero emissions in most parts, Europe is still behind. The economy is no more competitive, still relying on gas and oil from Russia. Europeans are faced with high power bills and protesters on the streets have long become part of the interior.

Extreme weather kills crops all over the planet. The Russians saw a market evolving and in 2025 began to ramp up food production. It since became their number one export product. The south delivers power in exchange for goods from the north. This strong interdependency is the fundament for peace talks taking place all over the planet. And massive military downgrading already occurred. The talks are now focusing on the last remaining missile systems and how to utilize them for non-military purpose.

Additional land use is illegal worldwide since 2028. The bill was highly controversial, but the shrinking population made the decision easier. 78% of people are living in cities anyway nowadays. First positive signs of recovering ecosystems are already obvious.

In the early 2020s, a non-profit organisation developed and open-sourced a revolutionary desalination plant. In 2030 the UN chief announced that deployment at all strategic places on earth will be concluded by 2034. She ended her historic speech with the words "Let's green our deserts. No more water wars!".
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: KiwiGriff on December 24, 2019, 10:08:12 AM
Quote
let's not forget, that trees are "programmed" to grow through weeds and bushes (and drought and torrential rains, etc.). In nature, no one cuts weeds, yet if you leave a field alone for 30-50 yrs, I guarantee you that there will be a forest by the end of that. (I "lost" some good agricultural land to that much quicker than that!)

Problem is here at lest invasive weed species out compete our native ones.
They also suppress competition.
Without human intervention northern NZ would end up with a mono culture of tobacco weed, ginger and pampas grass rather than our long lasting native rain forest ecology that can grow for tens of hundreds of years.
https://weedaction.org.nz/woolly-nightshade-tobacco-weed/
https://www.weedbusters.org.nz/weed-information/weed-list/pampas/
https://www.weedbusters.org.nz/weed-information/weed-list/wild-ginger/

Perversely some of our natives have become invasive weeds in other places .
http://www.rnzih.org.nz/pages/NativeWeeds.htm

I guess in millions of years nature will absorb these species into the ecology's they have invaded and evolve to a new state.
However in the human time frame we have fucked up the ecological balance  of the entire planet.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on December 30, 2019, 10:36:58 AM
Well, I expect we will be seeing some forecasts of the new decade this week. These will help us get some idea of what 2030 will be like, both in climate and otherwise.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: dnem on December 30, 2019, 11:41:45 AM
I find many if not most long term projections from the status quo favoring establishment to be rubbish.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on December 30, 2019, 01:14:46 PM
I find many if not most long term projections from the status quo favoring establishment to be rubbish.
Well, 2030 is not that long term (that's why I started this thread).
But as a friend of mine (who goes by the nom de cyber of "Cubist") said "It is easy to make predictions about the future. It is hard to make accurate predictions about the future."
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on December 30, 2019, 02:41:31 PM
I find many if not most long term projections from the status quo favoring establishment to be rubbish.
Well, 2030 is not that long term (that's why I started this thread).
But as a friend of mine (who goes by the nom de cyber of "Cubist") said "It is easy to make predictions about the future. It is hard to make accurate predictions about the future."
Economists' joke.
"Forecasts about the future?. Dammit, it's hard enough to make forecasts about the past."

My forecast?
Something very nasty will arrive from left field. But what?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on December 30, 2019, 10:40:19 PM
And probably.....
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bluice on December 30, 2019, 11:47:33 PM
At some point emissions must stop or we will face a civilizational collapse. Meanwhile renewables and batteries are getting cheaper. These trends will squeeze the fossil fuel corporations as is already happening in the coal industry. Backward-looking politicians such as Trump or Australia’s Morrison may try to delay the inevitable but they cannot change the laws of physics nor can they stop the market inertia.

Transportation will electrify during the 2020’s which will first disrupt the car industry and soon after the oil industry. The following job losses will create political havoc in countries such as Germany (expect right wing populists rolling back environmental regulation) but the biggest question marks are the authoritarian/undemocratic regional powers that are completely dependant on oil. VW, Shell or Exxon may or may not be able to reinvent themselves in the post oil world, but for saudiaramcos or gazproms of this world this will be nigh impossible, not to mention the administrations and economies that are dependant on them.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: philopek on December 31, 2019, 12:12:03 AM
At some point emissions must stop or we will face a civilizational collapse. Meanwhile renewables and batteries are getting cheaper. These trends will squeeze the fossil fuel corporations as is already happening in the coal industry. Backward-looking politicians such as Trump or Australia’s Morrison may try to delay the inevitable but they cannot change the laws of physics nor can they stop the market inertia.

There is problem that most forget:

As long as fossil fuels and it's derivatives are not banned/prohibited, each single drop of it will be pumped out of the earth.

Only that some of the ongoing changes shall make this happen over 100-150 years instead of 50-80 years but 150 or even 200 years are still a way too short time period to dodge the consequences.

Ergo, only way to dodge the cannon ball(s) is prohibition worldwide and this, to be honest, is nowhere in sight.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Shared Humanity on December 31, 2019, 12:48:05 AM
2030:

Since the ending of the Sanders presidency in 2028, democratic institutions are stronger than ever. The US is on its way to zero emissions. The green new deal is working. Because millions of additional worker where needed refugees from all over the world found a new home in the US. The big topic everyone is talking about these days is the weakening concept of arbitrary nation-states. The UN is slowly transitioning into a global government.

While Asia already is at zero emissions in most parts, Europe is still behind. The economy is no more competitive, still relying on gas and oil from Russia. Europeans are faced with high power bills and protesters on the streets have long become part of the interior.

Extreme weather kills crops all over the planet. The Russians saw a market evolving and in 2025 began to ramp up food production. It since became their number one export product. The south delivers power in exchange for goods from the north. This strong interdependency is the fundament for peace talks taking place all over the planet. And massive military downgrading already occurred. The talks are now focusing on the last remaining missile systems and how to utilize them for non-military purpose.

Additional land use is illegal worldwide since 2028. The bill was highly controversial, but the shrinking population made the decision easier. 78% of people are living in cities anyway nowadays. First positive signs of recovering ecosystems are already obvious.

In the early 2020s, a non-profit organisation developed and open-sourced a revolutionary desalination plant. In 2030 the UN chief announced that deployment at all strategic places on earth will be concluded by 2034. She ended her historic speech with the words "Let's green our deserts. No more water wars!".

Do you grow your own or just have a really good dealer?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bluice on December 31, 2019, 02:48:34 AM
At some point emissions must stop or we will face a civilizational collapse. Meanwhile renewables and batteries are getting cheaper. These trends will squeeze the fossil fuel corporations as is already happening in the coal industry. Backward-looking politicians such as Trump or Australia’s Morrison may try to delay the inevitable but they cannot change the laws of physics nor can they stop the market inertia.

There is problem that most forget:

As long as fossil fuels and it's derivatives are not banned/prohibited, each single drop of it will be pumped out of the earth.

Only that some of the ongoing changes shall make this happen over 100-150 years instead of 50-80 years but 150 or even 200 years are still a way too short time period to dodge the consequences.

Ergo, only way to dodge the cannon ball(s) is prohibition worldwide and this, to be honest, is nowhere in sight.
Well, yes and no.

Fossil fuels are used when the marginal cost of fuel extraction is less than the benefit of fuel consumption. (Also, the ROI must be higher in fossil fuel extraction than available ROI of an alternative investment, otherwise the capital will be invested in more profitable assets.)

We already have known FF deposits, mainly coal but also oil and gas, that are left unused simply because extracting them is not economically feasible.

But you are right that the cost-benefit calculus is and will be affected by policy and people’s preferences. Contrary to common misconception economics is not physics.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: sidd on December 31, 2019, 08:57:19 AM
Re: marginal cost of fuel extraction is less than the benefit of fuel consumption

Until externalities are fairly priced, cost/benefit calculations are worthless

sidd
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: blumenkraft on December 31, 2019, 09:00:55 AM
Couldn't agree more.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on December 31, 2019, 09:49:26 AM
Eventually (perhaps before 2030?) we will reach a point where, even without externalities, the ROI of marginal FF resources will make extracting them impossible.
When it takes more energy to get it out than you get from burning it, that is game over.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: blumenkraft on December 31, 2019, 09:59:54 AM
But other sectors will still depend on FFs. Like the chemical industry.

Renewables might make plastics and drugs more expensive to produce.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on December 31, 2019, 01:02:00 PM
Yes, Isaac Asimov wrote a short story where petroleum still being useful (for chemical synthesis) to an atomic powered society was a minor plot point.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 04, 2020, 09:24:13 PM
Doug Casey’s Top 7 Predictions for the 2020s
https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-caseys-top-7-predictions-for-the-2020s/
Quote
1 Demographics
2 The Greater Depression
3 The Election of a Left Wing Democrat
4 China Implodes
5 The United States Starts a Major War
6 US Dollar Loses Its Top Status
7 The Singularity
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: blumenkraft on January 05, 2020, 07:31:54 AM
7) LOL
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 05, 2020, 10:14:54 AM
7) LOL
Well, 6 out of 7 ain’t bad.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on January 05, 2020, 12:20:47 PM
I was not impressed with the article at all. It smells of strong political and racial bias. And of 1-7, maybe 2 and 5 are plausible, but even those not in the way described.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: kassy on January 05, 2020, 05:34:33 PM
1 Demographics

How to ruin a list from entry one. Demographics is counting people being born and passing away. You have that as long as you have people.  ::)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 05, 2020, 06:42:47 PM
1 Demographics

How to ruin a list from entry one. Demographics is counting people being born and passing away. You have that as long as you have people.  ::)

Well, I used his titles.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on January 05, 2020, 07:47:15 PM
1 Demographics

How to ruin a list from entry one. Demographics is counting people being born and passing away. You have that as long as you have people.  ::)

Well, I used his titles.
Demographics also includes the composition of the population, life expectancy birth and death rates (actual and trends) and  using that data to project population trends.

In China, those projections suggest population will peak sometime in the mid to late 2020's, and then decline, slowly and then at a gradually increasing rate.

This also means an ageing population, and since there is no immigration the proportion of the population of working age to the retired will decrease substantially. (AI & Automation to the rescue?)
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;quote=243183;topic=2651.200

JAPAN is already there with an extremely low birthrate (young people don't want the financial burden of a child), the  annual number of births in Japan (Japanese) has declined from 2.09 million in 1973 to 1.01 million in 2015. Compared with the population in 2015 of 127 million (125 million in 2019), based on the low-fertility projection, the total population is expected to fall below 100 million by 2049 and to decline to 82 million by 2065.
http://www.ipss.go.jp/pp-zenkoku/e/zenkoku_e2017/pp_zenkoku2017e_gaiyou.html

Without immigration the USA would likely be well on the way to a similar situation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/upshot/how-much-slower-would-the-us-grow-without-immigration-in-many-places-a-lot.html
Quote
As the United States debates the right levels of immigration — and whether, as President Trump suggested, there is room for much more of it — new census data shows that international migration is keeping population growth above water in much of the country.

Although international migration dropped in 2017 and 2018, it accounted for nearly half of overall American population growth in 2018 as birth rates declined and death rates rose.
.

Overall the birth rate of the European Union is 1.6 per woman of child-bearing age, less than that required to maintain the population. Without immigration, EU population would be gradually reducing, especially in Germany and Italy.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 06, 2020, 06:05:29 PM
What Will Another Decade of Climate Crisis Bring?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/13/what-will-another-decade-of-climate-crisis-bring
Quote
Every decade is consequential in its own way, but the twenty-twenties will be consequential in a more or less permanent way. Global CO2 emissions are now so high—in 2019, they hit a new record of forty-three billion metric tons—that ten more years of the same will be nothing short of cataclysmic. Unless emissions are reduced, and radically, a rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) will be pretty much unavoidable by 2030. This will make the demise of the world’s coral reefs, the inundation of most low-lying island nations, incessant heat waves and fires and misery for millions—perhaps billions—of people equally unavoidable.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 06, 2020, 09:31:24 PM
2020s - The Decade Ahead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3kPgtSb2UI&feature=youtu.be
Quote
Energy & resource things to expect in the 2020s ; peak oil, peak gold, worsening climate disasters, EV & green energy expansion, population levels, and more.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: TerryM on January 07, 2020, 08:25:38 AM
Tom
How will the world react as increasing numbers recognise the damage that national leaders and corporations done to their future?
Revolutions, coups, wars - or 9 to 5, TV evenings, and weekends in Las Vegas.
I'm guessing the latter.


Dreaming of a wonderful future is much easier than contemplating horror.
Terry
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 07, 2020, 09:25:11 AM
Tom
How will the world react as increasing numbers recognise the damage that national leaders and corporations done to their future?
Revolutions, coups, wars - or 9 to 5, TV evenings, and weekends in Las Vegas.
I'm guessing the latter.


Dreaming of a wonderful future is much easier than contemplating horror.
Terry
I’m guessing first the latter, then as the damage grows too great the former, but then it may be too late.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 09, 2020, 04:38:16 PM
Predictions for the 2020s
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2020/01/predictions-for-2020s.html
Quote
A particular canary in the coal mine is likely be the fracking industry. It never really made any money, but it did win the US a reprieve from the ravages of Peak Oil. And now production from fracked wells is peaking, depletion rates are going up, fracking companies are going bankrupt and the newly drilled wells are less oily and more gassy, with the gas not particularly high-quality or valuable. At some point during this decade the US will again be forced to rely on importing most of its oil and gas. Meanwhile, any attempt at a Green New Deal to decarbonize the US economy will result in a cost structure for electricity and transportation that will make virtually every kind of industrial production noncompetitive, as has already happened everywhere this has been tried, including the UK and Germany.


Facts and Speculations – Next Decade
https://deviantinvestor.com/11166/facts-and-speculations-next-decade/
Quote
Inflate or die! It is likely that runaway inflation or a deflationary depression are in our future—maybe both. I expect massive inflation followed by a deflationary collapse. That fits the “DNA” and “printing” inclinations of central banks. We shall see.
Deficit spending, debt creation, fiscal and monetary craziness, and political nonsense are dominant. They will self-destruct to the detriment of many people.
Prices for gold, S&P 500, food and gasoline will be much higher in 5—10 years. Individuals will express their displeasure at the ballot box and in the streets. Think Paris and other cities.
Gold and silver have preserved wealth for centuries. Can we say the same for pounds, dollars, or sovereign debt?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 12, 2020, 03:03:17 PM
Surf's Up
https://www.peakprosperity.com/surfs-up/
Quote
The one thing I’d like to leave you with is this: if you want a future worth having, get busy. Take that first step.  Don’t wait.

It’s time.

Why? Because the next 8 – 10 years are going to completely reshape everything we think we know about ‘how things work.’

Once the impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet really sinks in, vast new opportunities will open up and just as vast avenues of standard operating procedure will close down.

Broadly speaking, anything dependent on squandering cheap energy will be out. And anything offering more efficient ways to produce and distribute goods and services will be in.

Sorry malls. Goodbye McMansions. Sayonara to endless debt-fueled growth. The future will be all about living within our means.

Each of these and countless other changes will rock the very firmament of how people live, work and play.  The new opportunities will be nearly endless, while many things you now see about you will be decommissioned and dismantled.

The Fed Can't Reverse the Decline of Financialization and Globalization
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-fed-cant-reverse-decline-of.html
Quote
The prey always seem limitless to the predators, but this illusion expires when suddenly there is no longer enough for the ravenous pack of financial predators. At that point, the predators turn on each other. That is the narrative that will come to the fore in 2020 and play out in the decade ahead.

"There's Always A Bubble In The '20s": These Are The Top Bull And Bear Arguments
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/theres-always-bubble-20s-these-are-top-bull-and-bear-arguments
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tor Bejnar on January 13, 2020, 03:22:15 PM
cross post:
Mussels could be growing in ANTARCTICA within the next decade as human activity and climate change wreak havoc on the frozen continent's biodiversity


Mussels could be growing in Antarctica in the next ten years thanks to warmer waters caused by climate change and 'increased human activity', researchers claim.

Scientists analysed hundreds of studies to determine which species are 'most likely' to colonise the Antarctic Peninsula Region by 2030.

The British Antarctic Survey created a list of their 13 most concerning species, which features three species of mussel - Common blue, Chilean and Mediterranean.

Others on the list of invasive species include crabs, kelp and buttonweed. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7881167/Mussels-growing-ANTARCTICA-decade.html

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14938
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tor Bejnar on January 17, 2020, 07:48:15 PM
partial cross-post:
WEF Risks Report Ranks Climate Change as Biggest Global Threat
https://www.dw.com/en/wef-risks-report-ranks-climate-change-as-biggest-global-threat/a-51997420

In its 15th Global Risks Report (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risk_Report_2020.pdf) published on Wednesday, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has said that for the first time in the report's history all of the "top long-term risks by likelihood" are environmental. While in the previous decade economic and financial crises were seen as most dangerous, the report has found that risk perceptions have shifted to extreme weather, environmental disasters, biodiversity loss, natural catastrophes and failure to mitigate climate change.

...

Quote
"The near-term impacts of climate change add up to a planetary emergency that will include loss of life, social and geopolitical tensions and negative economic impacts," the report says, adding that failure of climate change mitigation and adaption is the No. 1 risk by impact and number two by likelihood over the next 10 years.

With it comes the loss of biodiversity — ranked as the second most impactful and third most likely risk for the next decade — which has critical implications for humanity due to the likely collapse of food and health systems and disruptions of entire supply chains.

...
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: The Walrus on January 17, 2020, 08:02:13 PM
Tor,
The report listed 5 environmental risks over the next 10 years; extreme weather, climate action failure, natural disaster, biodiversity loss, and human-made environmental disasters.  The last two items on the list are completely independent of climate change.  Climate action failure is an emotional response, which is less a result of climate change than socio-political issues.  Natural disaster and extreme weather should be categorized as one, as several natural disasters are unrelated to climate change (such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions).  The report is large on rhetoric, but soft on science.  I guess that is be expected from the World Economic Forum.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on January 17, 2020, 08:54:52 PM
WEF Risks Report Ranks Climate Change as Biggest Global Threat

But what will come from it ?

'Fine words butter no parsnips'
_______________________________________________________________________
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/fine-words-butter-no-parsnips.html
What's the origin of the phrase 'Fine words butter no parsnips'? Before potatoes, parsnips were a staple of the English diet. This proverbial saying is English and dates from the 17th century. It expresses the notion that fine words count for nothing and that action means more than flattery or promises.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on January 17, 2020, 10:01:41 PM
Maybe Attenborough's Swansong is coming soon.

Here is the trailer - could be labelled "it's now or never".
 
https://youtu.be/r-91umZ7cQE
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on January 18, 2020, 05:33:01 AM
Thanks for that gerontocrat.

A bit off topic or maybe not:
Do you know how to make sweetener/sugar from parsnips? Is it the same refining process as for sugar beets? How does it work? Can I do it myself?

From wikipedia:  "It was used as a sweetener before the arrival in Europe of cane sugar."
I'm moving away from all products from outside of Europe and I am struggling to get rid of the organic cane sugar I now use. Honey is too expensive for me and most organic honey offered in the shops is from outside of Europe, mainly South/Middle-America.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: kassy on January 18, 2020, 11:19:15 AM
It was used as a sweet ingredient so you can put in a cake or a jam but not in tea.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on January 18, 2020, 12:27:04 PM
Thanks for that gerontocrat.

A bit off topic or maybe not:
Do you know how to make sweetener/sugar from parsnips? Is it the same refining process as for sugar beets? How does it work? Can I do it myself?

From wikipedia:  "It was used as a sweetener before the arrival in Europe of cane sugar."
I'm moving away from all products from outside of Europe and I am struggling to get rid of the organic cane sugar I now use. Honey is too expensive for me and most organic honey offered in the shops is from outside of Europe, mainly South/Middle-America.
Only one thing left for you to do, Nanning - Learn to be a beekeeper ?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on January 18, 2020, 04:19:15 PM
Thank kassy and gerontocrat.

Learning to be a beekeeper would've been very interesting to me some time ago but now I can't anymore because it clashes with my non-supremacy over living nature, over other lifeforms.
I would have had no problem with taking honey out of a bees' nest in living nature were it not that we are in an anthropogenic insectageddon and the bees in particular aren't doing so well. I can of course lose the sweeteners altogether in my diet but... not yet. Having made so many sacrifices, I cling to a couple of last indulgences.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 18, 2020, 04:28:51 PM
nanning, what do you mean by "lifeforms"? Vegetables you eat are lifeforms. Is this where you draw the line?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on January 18, 2020, 05:47:08 PM
Yes vegetables are lifeforms. It is no problem if you perform your biological functions in an eco-system kind of way in the civilisation culture. That means for me to eat organic and not more than I need and not throw away food.
It also means not mowing the grass.
I found out after I bought them for my new apartment, that potted plants are also a form of supremacy. It is insane that I have to give them water and that they are not in the Earth. I can't put them outside because they'll die. So I keep them and not buy any plants again.

Living without exercising supremacy over living nature is impossible/extremely difficult in our (rich country) civilisation culture. Perhaps if you would own some land you could do it but I doubt it and it's only for rich persons (land owners).
It is not so black and white as it seems and many times very difficult to find the best behaviour. I'd say the last couple of percent of culture-normal bad behaviour is OK if the other 95+% is covered. Try to copy me :)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 18, 2020, 06:11:18 PM
When I owned a large plot if I hadn’t mowed the lawn I would have got in big trouble.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Bruce Steele on January 18, 2020, 08:40:50 PM
Nanning, Have you any access to an allotment ? I used to keep a nice garden in an allotment ( community garden ) . It was interesting because there was a very broad cultural background for the various gardeners and plots. Lots of things growing you might not be familiar with. Only thing I ever had stolen was a very nice crop of spray millet.
 There is a South American plant called Yacon that produces copious amounts of large tubers that can be boiled and reduced into a syrup. It is very sweet but it is a polysaccharide so you have to let your body slowly adapt to it. Don’t eat a lot the first day ! Your methane production may increase.
 
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: TerryM on January 18, 2020, 09:10:08 PM
nanning
With climate change, is staying with crops that traditionally grew in a certain region a reasonable goal?


Some of the Mexican/American Southwest agaves can stand (moderate) winters and might be sweeter than cane sugar. Well drained soil & full sunlight seem to be all that's required.


Terry
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on January 18, 2020, 09:46:27 PM
The first 50 megawatted wind turbines are expected to begin operations in 2030. They will be the height of the Empire State Building and their loading factor close to 100%. This will remove the problem of storing green electricity. In this regard, the threat of climate catastrophe will be removed.

https://www.betterworldsolutions.eu/lockheed-martin-designed-giant-wind-turbine-of-50-mw/

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/design-for-50mw-offshore-wind-turbine-inspired-by-palm-trees

(https://assets.greentechmedia.com/assets/content/cache/made/assets/content/cache/remote/https_assets.greentechmedia.com/content/images/articles/50_Megawatt_Offshore_Wind_Turbine_721_420_80_s_c1.jpg)

(https://sumrsite.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/scale-graphic-white.jpg?w=1200)

(https://www.courant.com/resizer/_S4SLeeJ5HKyOJEiuxzc7i2GJQg=/415x632/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/UWPG5IQZORAKTG4KIDEC2MM24U.jpg)

A small prototype of such a turbine is already being built in the USA:

Quote
Prototype testing planned for late summer in Colorado
The research team will soon put their design concepts to the test in the real world. By late summer, testing will begin on prototype blades built at one-fifth scale to the 105-meter-long blades designed for a 13.2-megawatt SUMR turbine.

The two-bladed rotor, with 21-meter blades, will be installed on a 12-story turbine tower at NREL’s National Wind Technology Center located south of Boulder, Colorado.

An engineering and manufacturing firm based in northern Washington state that specializes in advanced composite materials and exotic metals, Janicki Industries, is building the blades, with delivery expected in early summer.

“We’re doing some things that haven’t been done before in terms of mimicking the loads and dynamics of the full-scale turbine,” said Todd Griffith. “We’re able to bring those characteristics down to the one-fifth scale where we can do the test very cost-effectively.”

Performance data from the prototype testing will be fed back into the team’s design models. The project team is scheduled to complete the design for a 50-megawatt SUMR turbine by next spring.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: sidd on January 18, 2020, 09:57:16 PM
I saw this design a couple years ago. I bounced it off a couple aerospace profs i know, they were skeptical. Should follow up, i suppose.

sidd
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on January 18, 2020, 10:31:50 PM
I saw this design a couple years ago. I bounced it off a couple aerospace profs i know, they were skeptical. Should follow up, i suppose.

sidd

But over the past two years, technology has not stood. In the United States, General Electric has recently mastered the production of a 12 megawatt turbine with 107 meter blades. The loading factor of this turbine is about 63%. It is likely that by 2030 50 megawatt turbines with 200-meter blades and almost 100% load factor will appear.

This means a complete solution to the problem of energy storage.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on January 18, 2020, 10:57:24 PM
Orders for a 12-megawatt model are already thousands of turbine.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ge-wins-lands-first-big-deals-for-12mw-offshore-wind-turbine

Quote
The first orders for GE’s groundbreaking 12-megawatt Haliade-X offshore wind turbine have come from the industrial giant's home country, with developer Ørsted planning to deploy more than 1,200 megawatts of the machines in U.S. waters between 2022 and 2024.

GE on Thursday announced it has secured “preferred turbine supplier” status for Ørsted’s 120-megawatt Skipjack and 1,100-megawatt Ocean Wind projects, scheduled for completion off Maryland and New Jersey in 2022 and 2024. Both projects have offtake contracts in place.

The turbines and blades will be manufactured at GE's facilities in France and transported to the project sites.

https://energyindustryreview.com/renewables/dogger-bank-to-use-12mw-haliade-x-offshore-wind-turbines-from-ge/

Quote
Dogger Bank to Use 12MW Haliade-X Offshore Wind Turbines from GE

Dogger Bank Wind Farms is a 50:50 joint venture (JV) between Equinor and SSE Renewables. The overall wind farm comprises three 1.2 GW projects located in the North Sea, approximately 130km from the UK’s Yorkshire Coast. The projects were recently successful in the latest Contracts for Difference (CfDs) Allocation Round, the UK Government’s auction for renewable power.



In these latest news, they directly write that by 2030 at least 20 megawatt turbines will appear:

https://energyindustryreview.com/renewables/dogger-bank-to-use-12mw-haliade-x-offshore-wind-turbines-from-ge/

Quote
While Haliade-X is the largest turbine for which orders are being placed today, WoodMac expects 16-megawatt machines to be installed in U.S. waters by the end of the 2020s and product lines to include turbines of up to 20 megawatts.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on January 19, 2020, 12:06:53 AM
Or additional numbers. In 2018, the average capacity of installed offshore turbines in Europe almost reached 7 megawatts.

https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/about-wind/statistics/WindEurope-Annual-Offshore-Statistics-2018.pdf

Quote
In 2018 the average rated capacity of newly installed turbines was 6.8 MW, 15% larger than in 2017. Since 2014 the average rated capacity of newly installed wind turbines has grown at an annual rate of 16%. The largest turbine in the world was installed in the United Kingdom in 2018. Two V164-8.8 MW from MHI Vestas Offshore Wind, with a rotor diameter of 164 m, were connected at the European Offshore Wind Development Centre (EOWDC) wind farm.

Europe connected 2,649 MW of net offshore wind power capacity (409 turbines) in 2018. This is 15.8 % lower than in 2017, which was a record year. It added 2,660 MW of new (gross) capacity. 7 turbines were fully decommissioned at the Utgrunden I wind farm in Sweden, which was commissioned back in 2000. This accounts for the decommission of 10.5 MW in 2018.


The world of 2030 is a world of giant windmills.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on January 19, 2020, 02:12:19 AM
From April 2002 to November 2019, the GRACE and GRACE-FO satellites have recorded a  total Greenland+Antarctic Ice Sheet Mass Loss of 7,000 Gigatonnes, that has caused a sea level rise of nearly 20 millimetres.

To be added to that is sea level rise from melting glaciers and ice sheets elsewhere in the world,
estimated (2003 to 2018) at a mass loss of about 3000 Gt, equivalent to a sea level rise of 8 mm.

Sea level rise due to ocean water expansion from ocean heating is perhaps around 1.4 mm per annum., i.e about 28 mm this century.

i.e. Sea level rise this century of at least 50mm.

Anybody got a guess of what we get in the next 10 years?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on January 19, 2020, 06:31:45 AM
Bruce and Terry, good morning, thanks for the interest and suggestions guys, much appreciated.

Thanks for the ideas dear Bruce. I have no access to an allotment but it is possible to rent garden space from a communal one. It is not cheap and would seriously press on my budget. In addition I need to buy basic equipment and seeds/covers/stakes to make it work. In these times every single household has all sorts of the exact same equipment and don't share.
I have lived in this apartment for more than a year and still have not been able to hang anything on my walls because I don't have a drill but I know all those households around me will each have a drill. -Rrringg- "Sir could I please borrow your drill?" "Who are you?" "No, maybe the neighbour". I hardly know anyone here. This may change in the future but people (grown-ups) in general are not very open and trusting when they have accumulated a lot and are in the process of accumulating more.
Of course there must be nice kind and open welcoming people who like to share but I haven't met them yet, well perhaps I did where I'm sitting in the woods but they need to trust me first. I am this homeless looking guy sitting for hours every day on the same bench. My apartment complex mainly houses (very) old people and couples who have no need for equipment and keep mostly to themselves. Closed curtains and all that.
For a local sweetener I could try sugar beets and boil/syrup them (thanks for the tip) to get unrefined white crystal sugar. Are sugar beets local? Looks like I am making things very very difficult for myself. Likely unsolvable.
Extra methane production from my symbiotic friend? O no! ;D

Dear Terry, I don't know if that's a reasonable goal. I am no expert but here in Friesland the thing that's been a bit of a threat is prolonged drought. Nothing serious yet. There is not much food grown for human consumption here. Endless rows of mono-culture ryegrass fields that get mowed (shaven) many times per year to feed the indoor cattle. And some Corn, also for cattle.
I am a bit lost in how to proceed because I refuse to just find a solution for myself. Most people only care for themselves with their foodgrowing and don't share. I see all those allotments and private vegetable gardens showing nice food but they are far out of reach for me, being privately owned. Everyone for himself is not my forté. I don't want to make the same mistake. This is not just about finding an alternative sweetener.
I thought about growing Chinese yams on my balcony but 1. they are not local and 2. it will be a potted plant and I recently (see above post) changed my view on that.
It looks I have painted myself into a corner with my world view and life choices to match that understanding.
I am still learning about what our local foods of old are. Then again, almost all mono-culture fields are sprayed with biocides. Soil degradation will become prominent in the not so distant future I think. So I don't know whether or not those original local crops will be able to grow as they used to. Man I know hardly anything of growing food. Foraging is not an option because almost every piece of available fertile land is already used for mono-agriculture. There are some organic farms but they get no help/exemptions from government regulations even though the strict rules are made to stop the bad behaviour of agri-industry, so it's decouraged and difficult for farmers to convert more land to organic production. What a world.

Apologies for this messy post. My thoughts on this are not yet in line with each other.

Did you know? I have read the other day that The Netherlands is the world's second largest exporter of agricultural produce after the U.S.A.. Most of that is indoor grown in greenhouses and takes up an enormous amount of dirty energy and chemicals. Is a crash of those exports and implied economic growth dip to be expected in the next 10 years? The whole giant sector needs to change and will be impossible to go on like they have.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: sidd on January 19, 2020, 07:20:05 AM
Re: 50MW windmill design

I think the main problem of the profs i spoke with were the joints where  the blades would fold almost perpendicular to the support tower in high wind, they were doubtful that design would be robust enuf.

sidd
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on January 19, 2020, 10:17:17 AM


Anybody got a guess of what we get in the next 10 years?

Based on your numbers I would say 5-8 cms sea level rise until 2030. Nothing to write home about. (don't misunderstand me, it is a serious long term problem and whole countries will be uinder water in 100-200 years, but not much to create interest in 10 years(
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on January 19, 2020, 10:26:42 AM
nanning,

No offens, but you are a typical dreamer (I know some) who fantasizes a lot about ecosystems and sustainable living, but you can not grow even a tiny part of your own food. I agree with Bruce, get an allotment. Using nothing else than good, homemade compost and some care, you can grow 2-8 kgs of produce per m2 per year with organic, no dig methods. You will also learn a lot about ecosystems as well, get some exercise and have a great time in your small parcel of polyculture as an added bonus.  You can grow flowers, clovers, lavander and lupins (my favourite!) interspersed with vegetables. You will see all sorts of bumblebees working on these and then other bugs and birds will come. Put out some old, rotting wood for snakes (I have a few Aesculapian snakes in my garden and various toads as well) to hide under. There is a beautiful world out there to be watched and cared for! That is how the world of 2030 will be a better one...
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 19, 2020, 10:39:40 AM
I don’t have a drill, I just hammer a nail in the wall.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: blumenkraft on January 19, 2020, 10:47:25 AM
El Cid, in your country, do you just ask and then you get a piece of land to grow your stuff?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on January 19, 2020, 11:49:43 AM
El Cid, in your country, do you just ask and then you get a piece of land to grow your stuff?

I am lucky to have my own, quite big piece of land (4000m2) around my house with fruit trees and a few older pines and oaks, a big yew tree, hazels, and vegetables, various berries, a small parcel of alfalafa, flowers, etc. I know I am lucky with all this. I also own a forest and some agricultural land. I am quite well off, but that is not the point.

The point is that as far as I know, in many countries you have community gardens, allotments, etc, which you can rent for a nominal fee. Even in my country there are a lot of small villages, where land is virtually free. In fact, a few Dutch farmers and pensioner are moving in. Also some Germans and Austrians are buying old peasant houses in villages with big pieces of land for a few thousand euros near some nice forests/streams. Yes, you have to renovate it, and put a lot of effort into making it all look beautiful.
I just wanted to say that if you want to live a life close to "Nature" and working the land, it is far from impossible for many people.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: blumenkraft on January 19, 2020, 12:06:27 PM
The point i was trying to make is that you might be arguing from a privileged perspective and that a poor person cannot just have their own garden.

And your answer is a big fat QED.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Aporia_filia on January 19, 2020, 12:19:24 PM
nanning, we must be as consequent as possible with the way we think, but don't forget that you should also admit some adaptation crutches. It's almost impossible not to have an influence on the environment, which is natural.
You're receiving money from the Government, aren't you? Is it totally clean money?
Here, in this valley in the middle of a mountain riff, you can forage most of the year, you can grow your food by planting trees and vegetables that become part of the natural environment. Why introducing some plants that cannot become a danger for the rest, is a bad thing? You can even have free meat stealing some of what the wolves kill, my dogs do that.
I live with a couple of dogs and cats, but they are my friends, not my possessions. They can move where they want, sleep where they want. I'm even considering the chance of looking after some small sheep for their wool.
You preserve them from wolves attacks and they give you some wool in exchange.
A half Belgian/Argentinian in his forties has bought another small stone house and now is living part of the year in Belgium, earning some money, and the rest here. Restoring his house now but desperate to come here full time. We think in a cooperative way, we share tools, knowledge, food, one car is more than enough and probably we'll share the sheep idea. A painter in his sixties is the only other temporary inhabitant of the valley, but he comes and goes if the weather is too tuff. He doesn't even have a toilet.
Last month in a near hamlet the few inhabitants were all nervous because a rich Californian woman was looking for a hamlet to buy, to start another ecovillage. I think this was too rough for her, at the end.
At least here in Spain and Portugal this is not that strange.
There are a few ecovillages where people live how you want, although is not easy to be allowed in.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on January 19, 2020, 12:54:44 PM


Anybody got a guess of what we get in the next 10 years?

Based on your numbers I would say 5-8 cms sea level rise until 2030. Nothing to write home about. (don't misunderstand me, it is a serious long term problem and whole countries will be uinder water in 100-200 years, but not much to create interest in 10 years(
Water is heavy. 8 cm depth of water weighs 80kg per m2.
This accelerates coastal erosion from wave action, and there are plenty of places where that will be very unwelcome. There will be some more climate change refugees., human and non-human.

Sunny day flooding, e.g. in Florida will increase in frequency and area. Longterm prolonged immersion in salt water does not do underground infrastructure any favours.

OK, maybe no drama for most of us, but utter misery for some.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on January 19, 2020, 02:10:24 PM
Climate refugees from 8 cm sea level rise? I hardly believe that. The thing is, it is a slow process, noone will notice for a good while.

As an example of real horrors rather look at Jakarta. Some parts are sinking by 10-20 cm PER YEAR(!!!) <yet, no refugees!> and are under sea level already, due to three main factors: 1) most important: people lacking good tapwater are pumping groundwater which sinks the ground making the place ever more floodprone and 2) sewers are not being tended to 3) some extreme rain-events (377 mm on a single day, see below) immediately cause chaos and death:

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/01/01/not-ordinary-rain-worst-rainfall-in-over-decade-causes-massive-floods-in-jakarta.html

More people died there than in the Australia bushfires, and much--much more (400 000!) had to be evacuated. Yet you hear nothing about it in the mainstream media.

This is caused by human stupidity and overpopulation mostly, the extreme rain is just a sidenote.

I brought it up because I think the situation in Jakarta is much worse than an 8 cm sea-rise. Rich countries will be able to cope with a small sea level rise easily. Poor ones will be hit heavily even without such an event due to poor governance
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on January 19, 2020, 02:13:22 PM
And so what does the Indonesian government do with their unlivable city? They move the capital into the middle of Borneo (with no roads and not much infrastructure, a pretty pristine area), into a city that is surrounded by jungle, so that even this last refuge of the orangutan will be destroyed as millions will flock there from Jakarta and other cities. Clever indeed. Welcome to the world of 2030!
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: kassy on January 19, 2020, 02:41:32 PM
Sea level rise always works together with local subsidence and local geographic features (Bangladesh for example).

<yet, no refugees!>

There was a photoseries on the BBC last year about Jakarta´s poor living with flooding. They still had lessons in a flooded school (it suffered nuisance flooding). They lived and worked in similar situations.

If you are just making a living in a spot with no savings or garantees of a job when you move it might just not be an option.  These people will be refugees but only when they really can not live there anymore.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bluice on January 19, 2020, 02:58:45 PM
Indonesia will build a new capital in Borneo to replace Jakarta. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/indonesia-new-capital-city-borneo-forests-jakarta

I doubt it’s inhabitants will be called climate refugees which in fact shows how difficult it will be to pinpoint who exactly is forced to relocate due to climate change.

Which brings us to the topic. I’m sceptical that we see any meaningful action to bring global co2e emissions down before 2030. I’m quite certain however that there will be major steps in adaptation to changing climate. Even diehard denialists such as the aussie PM can no longer pretend AGW isn’t happening.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: The Walrus on January 19, 2020, 03:34:14 PM
Indonesia will build a new capital in Borneo to replace Jakarta. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/indonesia-new-capital-city-borneo-forests-jakarta

I doubt it’s inhabitants will be called climate refugees which in fact shows how difficult it will be to pinpoint who exactly is forced to relocate due to climate change.

Which brings us to the topic. I’m sceptical that we see any meaningful action to bring global co2e emissions down before 2030. I’m quite certain however that there will be major steps in adaptation to changing climate. Even diehard denialists such as the aussie PM can no longer pretend AGW isn’t happening.

There will likely be no climate refugees, as the country has no plans to move the residents of Jakarta.  The only thing being moved is the government offices and employees.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 19, 2020, 04:16:55 PM
Quote
Based on your numbers I would say 5-8 cms sea level rise until 2030. Nothing to write home about. (don't misunderstand me, it is a serious long term problem and whole countries will be uinder water in 100-200 years, but not much to create interest in 10 years(
Well, a few cms is the difference between just below my lips and just above my nostrils.
Every inch heightens coastal erosion.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on January 19, 2020, 05:07:19 PM
As I understand it, a multi-meter rise in the ocean is expected no earlier than 2100. By this time, civilization will be able to zero out emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, and even bind all the carbon emitted. I think that by 2100 we will be able to return the planet to a pre-industrial state at the end of the 18th century. That is, we will partially restore the ecological balance that existed on the planet before the advent of Homo sapiens.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on January 19, 2020, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: Aporia_filia
You're receiving money from the Government, aren't you? Is it totally clean money?

Do I have a choice? Do I have any influence on that? I haven't voted for this government. I didn't choose to be unemployed.
But I did choose to be poor before I became unemployed, i.e. no accumulation.

Quote
You preserve them from wolves attacks and they give you some wool in exchange.

No, they don't. You have to take it off them. There's a difference.

Don't you guys (El Cid and Aporia_filia) have any limits? Is this affluence?
Why are homeless people not moving in? Or invited even?


Quote from: gerontocrat
OK, maybe no drama for most of us, but utter misery for some.

Thanks gerontocrat.

El Cid, I am curious where you live.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on January 19, 2020, 06:34:32 PM
As I understand it, a multi-meter rise in the ocean is expected no earlier than 2100. By this time, civilization will be able to zero out emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, and even bind all the carbon emitted. I think that by 2100 we will be able to return the planet to a pre-industrial state at the end of the 18th century. That is, we will partially restore the ecological balance that existed on the planet before the advent of Homo sapiens.

At GMST +4°C and 80 years further into the anthropogenic great mass extinction and ecosystems collapse?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on January 19, 2020, 07:00:32 PM
As I understand it, a multi-meter rise in the ocean is expected no earlier than 2100. By this time, civilization will be able to zero out emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, and even bind all the carbon emitted. I think that by 2100 we will be able to return the planet to a pre-industrial state at the end of the 18th century. That is, we will partially restore the ecological balance that existed on the planet before the advent of Homo sapiens.

At GMST +4°C and 80 years further into the anthropogenic great mass extinction and ecosystems collapse?

Not so bad. For example, now forest cover in England is equal to around 1400. It is expected that by 2060 she will return in about 1250.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry_in_the_United_Kingdom

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Woodland_as_a_percentage_of_land_area_in_England.png/1024px-Woodland_as_a_percentage_of_land_area_in_England.png)

Quote
Historical woodland cover of England. The Domesday Book of 1086 indicated cover of 15%, "but significant loss of woodland started over four thousand years ago in prehistory". By the beginning of the 20th century this had dropped to 5%. The government believes 12% can be reached again by 2060.[18]

As you can see, forests are now recovering much faster than they were cut down before.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: The Walrus on January 19, 2020, 07:09:11 PM
As I understand it, a multi-meter rise in the ocean is expected no earlier than 2100. By this time, civilization will be able to zero out emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, and even bind all the carbon emitted. I think that by 2100 we will be able to return the planet to a pre-industrial state at the end of the 18th century. That is, we will partially restore the ecological balance that existed on the planet before the advent of Homo sapiens.

At GMST +4°C and 80 years further into the anthropogenic great mass extinction and ecosystems collapse?

Not so bad. For example, now forest cover in England is equal to around 1400. It is expected that by 2060 she will return in about 1250.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry_in_the_United_Kingdom

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Woodland_as_a_percentage_of_land_area_in_England.png/1024px-Woodland_as_a_percentage_of_land_area_in_England.png)

Quote
Historical woodland cover of England. The Domesday Book of 1086 indicated cover of 15%, "but significant loss of woodland started over four thousand years ago in prehistory". By the beginning of the 20th century this had dropped to 5%. The government believes 12% can be reached again by 2060.[18]

As you can see, forests are now recovering much faster than they were cut down before.

Probably the combination of warmer temps, increased precipitation, and higher CO2 levels.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on January 19, 2020, 07:15:48 PM
For comparison, here is the population of England over the past thousand years:

(https://urbanrim.org.uk/images/full%20series.png)

As you can see, agricultural productivity has been growing all this time, and now we do not need as much land as in the Middle Ages.

In the future, land will need even less due to depopulation and robotization.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Aporia_filia on January 19, 2020, 07:51:17 PM
Quote
From nanning: is that affluence?

I'm living on less than 6.000€ a year.

Quote
Do I have a choice?

Good question.
And I don't understand "any limits"
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on January 19, 2020, 08:52:37 PM
The median net wage in the Hungarian countryside is cca 600 euros per month per worker.  I guess that is less than the unemployment benefits in most Western European countries...yet somehow people stay alive :)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: bluice on January 19, 2020, 08:55:27 PM
The median net wage in the Hungarian countryside is cca 600 euros per month per worker.  I guess that is less than the unemployment benefits in most Western European countries...yet somehow people stay alive :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on January 20, 2020, 05:29:26 AM
Thanks bluice.

Aporia_filia, from your description as a land owner, I have misjudged your monetary wealth. But owning land is a form of wealth as well because most people don't own land. And my limits question was based on that so sorry again for my misjudgement.

I liked your welcoming 'invitation' and then posed a question about sharing with the disadvantaged:
Quote from: nanning
"Why are homeless people not moving in? Or invited even?"

Not to make you feel guilty or anything like that because it is completely normal behaviour to not share land and property. I could have posed the same question to Bruce Steele or sidd who own land. You are people I respect because of your higher morality and awareness.

It is just a question from a poor person without land/allotment (which was where this little discussion started if I'm correct). But I am not homeless or deprived compared to most other poor people, living in a northern rich country with a (degrading) functioning social security system. Well, not for the homeless of course. For a higher morality intelligent social security system you need to look at Finland.
El Cid won't be open to these questions I assume.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on January 20, 2020, 07:55:16 AM
...El Cid won't be open to these questions I assume.

Unfortunately I am not Mother Teresa, and that is why I do not invite the homeless.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on January 20, 2020, 08:08:06 AM
The median net wage in the Hungarian countryside is cca 600 euros per month per worker.  I guess that is less than the unemployment benefits in most Western European countries...yet somehow people stay alive :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity

Now, PPP comes up implying that although wages are smaller, prices are also lower, so all is good.

1) wages here are much lower than prices vs W.Europe. See map here (net average salary adjusted for living costs in PPP), this shows the actual buying power of salaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#Net_average_monthly_salary_(adjusted_for_living_costs_in_PPP)

2) Hungary in very much Budapest-centric. The people in and around the capital live quite well even by global standards. Wages are much higher than in the countryside.

3) In poorer countries wages are lower, therefore the price of non-tradable goods (mostly services, which contain a very big human labour input) is significantly lower. However, tradable goods, say wheat or steel have the same price all around the globe, precisely because they are tradable. Now, the poorer you are the more tradable goods (commodities) you consume and PPP won't help you out. The richer you are, the more services you consume. So a relatively richer man in a poor country lives much better than his/her salary would suggest, but it is not true for the poorer people. That is why (plus because of the above point 2) I did not generally say "people in Hungary" but "people in the countryside".
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: sidd on January 20, 2020, 08:45:42 AM
Oddly enuf, we have had couple homeless guyz coming and working forawhile. One hung for a couple months, the other out after a couple weeks.

Consider: nearest grocery an hour away driving across two ridges, nearest hardware store half that distance, nearest hospital two hours, nearest pharmacy one hour,  nearest town of any size  two hours. (Nearest bar half an hour.) In good weather. All bets off in bad.

No cellfone reception. One landline. Two radio stations reception, both Christian radio. No cable, no broadcast TV. Slo satellite internet, goes out in storms.

And nobody comes by except the neighbours. Two vehicles coming by in an hour is rush hour, see that Fridays sometimes.

Your world needs planning weeks, months, years in advance on an isolated farm, as Bruce knows. They weren't good at it. We helped as much as we could, set em up with bank accounts which they didnt have, so we could pay em. Got one of em a lawyer so he could get off a stupid charge. But they couldn't hack it, went back to the city, possibly to the street.

I know the family of one of them that's how i knew him His dad and brother would have nuttn to do with the guy. He inherited some of his dads talents, could do welds that looked like they grew there. When he was sober. I heard he eventually wound up in a mental institution. Dunno what happened to the other guy.

We quit doin that after those two. We can't be there all the time, and it is very possible to kill yourself with farm equipment. Which both came close to doin. Not to speak of trashing the place on occasion while non sober.

Nowadays nobody there until we know them well and trust them enuf.

sidd
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on January 20, 2020, 10:13:06 AM
Thanks for sharing sidd. The difference between theory and practice is often enlightening.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on January 20, 2020, 10:46:57 AM
Yes thanks sidd. I expected something like that. But of course homeless people are not all the same.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Aporia_filia on January 20, 2020, 12:02:47 PM
Nanning, you were saying not feeling comfortable where you were living. That's why I wondered why you were not considering any other option and I mentioned some of them.

Where I live now I have all the problems that Sidd mentioned. But the paths are only for real 4x4 vehicles. And when rain or snow are hard, like now, you can only walk in or out, with a short cut of 2 hours walking (if you're fit) and 400m unevenness. No paid work possible, no shops, no TV, evasive satellite internet, telephone only with good weather... I haven't seen humans in two weeks now.

When I work for some of the locals I never charge them any money, they give me some food in exchange.

When I lost my eco-farm (because of a wrong marriage) that I had worked so hard that now is difficult to imagine (like having both joints of my right thumb broken and didn't stop working) I took your very same determination: I was going to live poor, BUT in close relation with nature and not depending on anyone. I don't have any incomes (my very old parents still send me a couple of hundreds for xmast or birthday) but I pay taxes. Taxes as if I were working just to have the chance of a decent pension in 9 years time. Taxes, as every other poor or not, to buy food (VAT) or any other item. I haven't and won't ask for any Government help.

"Reality is merely an illusion" and mine is feeling free.

I don't like the idea of owning land, but is a MUST if you want to live like I do. The price of the square meter is less than 0.5 euros, in part because you are advise that services do not work in a Natural Park. You have to look after yourself and the paths and there are very tight restrictions to change anything.

By the way, when I lived in Valencia I had an illegal Moroccan staying for two months at home. It was impossible to do something else for him so he left to Mallorca looking for any luck. An abandoned Russian sailor stayed with my aunt's family for two years. My cousin is working in Africa helping refugees since the 90s. I grew up in a healthy cooperative atmosphere.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on January 20, 2020, 04:39:50 PM
Thanks for that wonderful description and personal story Apotia_filia. You answered my question and are living like I would like to live. But I would have no idea how to stay alive. I don't even have tools. Do you have a car?
Hard work outside and hardship don't frighten me. I am almost looking for it. But I don't know how to live without money to buy stuff.
Are you living with a partner?

  "I grew up in a healthy cooperative atmosphere."
I almost envy you. And I want to pay my compliments and respect for your views of living nature and other people in need/abandoned. A very big virtual hug from me!

We pleasantly disagree here: "Reality is merely an illusion".
I have found reality outside of any illusions in my research. And I understand what reality means from any lifeform's perspective.

I need to correct some wrong idea about me Aporia_filia: I can't imagine having complained about the place where I have moved to, where I live now. Perhaps you've read about my lack of contacts here? I am now living in a village and this is paradise for me compared to Amsterdam. I can't overstate my almost daily joy of the surrounding living nature and the completely different people, being much more open, interesting and kind. And Frisian of course, which I am also, and can speak the language all the time (and get better at it).
Comfortable is not a word I use or has importance in my life.

I am thinking sometimes about traveling to another place and how to do it. My sister lives in Switzerland. And Extramadura is nice but I don't talk Iberian ;)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Aporia_filia on January 21, 2020, 01:03:04 PM
No, nanning, I don't have a human partner but, as I said, some animal partners.
I have an old car that hate using. Living on your own is not environmentally friendly! Unless you managed to be totally self sufficient. That's why I like the idea of some conscious neighbors.

It looks as if I also misunderstood you about how you felt in your neighborhood. Sorry.
Is not the first time you mentioned being totally certain about something. We have to disagreed. You know my alias.
I studied psychology just for fun and the perception subject teach you to be very aware of what you see. So, much more care needed for what you think. Our brain is built to cheat ourselves.

http://illusionoftheyear.com/
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: PragmaticAntithesis on January 21, 2020, 06:17:07 PM
I think 2030 will come just before we start seeing the worst of climate change. If temperature rises continue at a similar rate to that of 1980-2019 (0.18°C/decade), we will be around +1.3°C compared to pre-industrial levels. That's not quite breaching the apocalypse threshold of +1.5°C.

A September BOE may have already happened, but the water will not have had enough time to warm up and stop being the centre of coldness, so the jetstream and gulf stream will both still carry on (though their days will be very much numbered).

Land ice and permafrost will be melting even more rapidly than they are today, but that will only cause a few centimetres of sea level rise, as the latent heat of fusion of water combined with the sheer depth of the ice acts as a very effective heat sink, delaying the big melt.

One impact I think we will be feeling the brunt of by 2030 is increased weather disasters. With warmer oceans, a weakened jetstream, and the potential of wet bulb temperature causing areas to become uninhabitable, I think we'll start seeing a lot more "natural" disasters.

I think by 2030 we'll be screwed, but not dead.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: The Walrus on January 21, 2020, 06:32:47 PM
I think 2030 will come just before we start seeing the worst of climate change. If temperature rises continue at a similar rate to that of 1980-2019 (0.18°C/decade), we will be around +1.3°C compared to pre-industrial levels. That's not quite breaching the apocalypse threshold of +1.5°C.

A September BOE may have already happened, but the water will not have had enough time to warm up and stop being the centre of coldness, so the jetstream and gulf stream will both still carry on (though their days will be very much numbered).

Land ice and permafrost will be melting even more rapidly than they are today, but that will only cause a few centimetres of sea level rise, as the latent heat of fusion of water combined with the sheer depth of the ice acts as a very effective heat sink, delaying the big melt.

One impact I think we will be feeling the brunt of by 2030 is increased weather disasters. With warmer oceans, a weakened jetstream, and the potential of wet bulb temperature causing areas to become uninhabitable, I think we'll start seeing a lot more "natural" disasters.

I think by 2030 we'll be screwed, but not dead.

What type of weather disasters do you believe will occur then?  If the changes that have occurred since the start of the Industrial Age are any indication, then we would expect a net decrease in weather disasters.

https://www.longdom.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.pdf
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on January 21, 2020, 06:57:18 PM
Nicely written PA.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on January 21, 2020, 07:44:50 PM
That's not quite breaching the apocalypse threshold of +1.5°C.


1,5 C is no magic threshold, it is a made-up number to make politicians do something finally and threatening them with a precise, round number, telling them that if that number is breached we are doomed.

Nothing special will happen at 1.5 C, certainly no apocalypse.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 21, 2020, 08:24:04 PM


Anybody got a guess of what we get in the next 10 years?

Based on your numbers I would say 5-8 cms sea level rise until 2030. Nothing to write home about. (don't misunderstand me, it is a serious long term problem and whole countries will be uinder water in 100-200 years, but not much to create interest in 10 years(

Sorry, sea level rise will be a catastrophe long before the end of this century and already is very problematic for some coastal regions. In parts of Miami, sewer systems fail periodically, spilling raw sewage into streets and this occurs with sunny day flooding.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article239005633.html

The 1st thing to fail in our coastal cities will be sewer systems. The water does not need to be higher than ground level. Rising water tables are filling sewer systems with ground water, rendering them periodically inoperable and eventually causing them to fail entirely.

No city can survive without a functioning waste water system.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: kassy on January 21, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
1,5C is not a magical treshhold but 1C would have been much more sensible as we can conclude from seeing a world overshooting that.

Then there are those other little details like us murdering the Amazon and converting lots of other old growth forests into something else. Actively destroying the sinks.

While we are also adding fun elements in the mix which do not have historical comparisons.

Also the point is not apocalypse but the suffering of billions most of whom have not really contributed much to our current predicament.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: kassy on January 21, 2020, 10:19:30 PM
Per the linked article, NOAA and NASA find that "… 2019 was 1.22°C (2.19°F) above the pre-industrial baseline temperature."

Title: "2019 in Review: Global Temperature Rankings"

https://medialibrary.climatecentral.org/resources/2019-in-review-global-temperature-rankings

Extract: "NOAA and NASA’s global temperature data is in, naming 2019 the 2nd hottest year on Earth since records began and making the 2010s the hottest decade on record.


GL with 1,3C in 2030.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 21, 2020, 10:26:23 PM
1,5C is not a magical treshhold but 1C would have been much more sensible as we can conclude from seeing a world overshooting that.

Then there are those other little details like us murdering the Amazon and converting lots of other old growth forests into something else. Actively destroying the sinks.

While we are also adding fun elements in the mix which do not have historical comparisons.

Also the point is not apocalypse but the suffering of billions most of whom have not really contributed much to our current predicament.

Driving to work last week, I got caught up in a horrific traffic jam. Took 2 hours for what is normally a 40 minute commute. There was a multi-car collision with multiple fatalities. One man's inconvenience is another man's apocalypse.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: The Walrus on January 21, 2020, 10:34:27 PM
Kasey,
Yes, the destruction of the Amazon and other areas have a much more dire and immediate impact than a few tenth of temperature rise.  Most species can adapt to slow changes.  Large changes are much more difficult to adapt to, and can greatly stress life.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Bernard on January 21, 2020, 10:59:48 PM
One man's inconvenience is another man's apocalypse.

Indeed. No living thing experiences the death of its species, only its individual death. Either billions of your kind remain after you or you are the last one, you die alone so it's no big deal. And that's maybe the reason why most people will never feel an emergency in saving their species or the planet. If my personal death means the apocalypse, why care for the rest?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: be cause on January 21, 2020, 11:19:24 PM
another 100 billion trees gone .. if we don't accelerate the destruction . That's over 1 million trees lost every hour for the next 10 years . At the current rate we will have no trees on the planet by 2320 .. too far away for anyone to worry .. b.c.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: The Walrus on January 21, 2020, 11:39:35 PM
another 100 billion trees gone .. if we don't accelerate the destruction . That's over 1 million trees lost every hour for the next 10 years . At the current rate we will have no trees on the planet by 2320 .. too far away for anyone to worry .. b.c.

The tree cutting is not equal.  The losses are mainly in the tropics.  The mid-latitudes are experiencing forest growth.  However, that was not realized until after much acreage was felled.  Hard to say when the third world with reverse course.  Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: VideoGameVet on January 22, 2020, 12:50:41 AM
Here's one of the worst possibilities for the coming decade:

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/climate-risk-and-response-physical-hazards-and-socioeconomic-impacts

McKinsley: For example, as heat and humidity increase in India, by 2030 under an RCP 8.5 scenario, between 160 million and 200 million people could live in regions with a 5 percent average annual probability of experiencing a heat wave that exceeds the survivability threshold for a healthy human being, absent an adaptation response. (The technical threshold we employed is a three-day heatwave with wet-bulb temperatures of 34 degrees Celsius. At that point, the urban heat island effect could increase the wet-bulb temperature to 35 degrees Celsius. All our lethal heatwave projections are subject to uncertainty related to the future behavior of atmospheric aerosols and urban heat island or cooling island effects).
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on January 22, 2020, 07:14:10 AM
Yes, climate change is most dangerous for those places that are already very hot. That is obvious
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on January 25, 2020, 06:55:08 PM
A new study suggesting disasters will become very much more frequent as CO2 levels rise. I suspect the methodology will come in for criticism.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/24/climate-crisis-study-flood-storm-study
Frequency of intense floods and storms could double in 13 years, says study
Quote
Intense floods and storms around the world could double in frequency within 13 years, as climate breakdown and socioeconomic factors combine, according to a new study.

The authors of the analysis say it’s the first to incorporate historical local and global climate data and information about population density, income and poverty to estimate how many hard-hitting disasters to expect. They counted floods and storms that would affect 1,000 people or kill 100 people.

Broadly, the researchers also see governments around the world as critically unprepared. The authors found very high risks for countries such as Australia, Bangladesh and China. Risks are highest for countries that are already seeing far more extreme events than the global average.

Thomas said the findings of an “unmistakable causal link between carbon emissions and more intense floods and storms come at a crucial time,” as forest fires burn through Australia and floods and powerful storms hit the US and Europe.

The study examined how disasters have increased as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere over 60 years. It then projected that same trend into the future and considered how much a continued increase in floods and storms would affect regions based on how populous they are and whether residents are financially secure and prepared for disasters.

The research used an economic approach, rather than relying on climate modeling – which uses computers to calculate likely outcomes based on a range of inputs. The journal publishing the study is based in Manila and not widely known. The authors said they first attempted to publish their work in the well-read journal Science.

Don Wuebbles, a professor of atmosphere sciences at the University of Illinois who worked on the 2018 US National Climate Assessment, said the study might be underestimating future disasters by assuming disasters will continue to increase at the current rate. He said he appreciated that the researchers considered population growth and density but that he was “not sure they adequately considered the changes in climate for the future”.

Ramón López, the lead author of the study who is a professor at the University of Chile, acknowledged the methods used might not account for the likelihood that severe events will increase at a faster rate than we have seen in the past.

You can download the study as a pdf from https://www.cddjournal.org/article/view/vol04-iss1-3

Here is a quote from the study....
Quote
Our results show that if CO2  level increases by 1%, then the hydrometeorological disasters would increase by 8.96 % (see Appendix B6). Using this elasticity, we then project the number of intense disasters in the future. For instance, the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2  has
been about 2.4 ppm, or about 0.6% of the base 396.54 ppm level, from 2010 to 2016. We choose this period to reflect the more recent and higher trend in the CO2  level as compared to that between 1970 and 2016, in which the average CO2  increase is around 1.70 ppm.

Accordingly, the number of intense hydrometeorological disasters could increase by 5.4% annually for the “average” country or by 0.05 more disasters. This is with respect to the 2010–2016 average, which is 0.856 disasters per year. This implies that under the current trend in the
increase in atmospheric CO2  accumulation, the number of intense hydrometeorological disasters could double in 13 years or from an average of 0.856 to 1.71 disasters annually.

These estimated effects of CO2  accumulation on disasters are not much larger than those obtained from climate change models. Likewise, climate change models predict that the increase in accumulated CO2 stock would have massive effects on the number of intense hydrometeorological disasters. Climate model estimates predict that if CO2  concentrations double, then the frequency of Category 5 hurricanes may triple (Anderson & Bausch, 2006).

Moreover, the models estimate that an increase of 1 °C in global temperature would increase the number of Category 3 (e.g., hurricane Katrina) events by seven times (Grinsted et al., 2013).
If GHG concentrations will continue to rise throughout the 21st century, then climate change—even under mitigation scenarios—will still continue to affect humanity, particularly those in the tropical coastal areas
(Mora et al., 2018).
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on February 10, 2020, 02:06:06 PM

We miss a sense of urgency and i fear the worst for what we have left to safe in 2030...

(No kids myself but my best friends kids will be teenagers by then i sort of dread the story i will have to tell them).
"....by then I sort of dread the story I will have to tell them"

In one way it seems 2030 has already arrived.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/10/overwhelming-and-terrifying-impact-of-climate-crisis-on-mental-health
‘Overwhelming and terrifying’: the rise of climate anxiety
Experts concerned young people’s mental health particularly hit by reality of the climate crisis

Quote
Over the past few weeks Clover Hogan has found herself crying during the day and waking up at night gripped by panic. The 20-year-old, who now lives in London, grew up in Queensland, Australia, cheek by jowl with the country’s wildlife, fishing frogs out of the toilet and dodging snakes hanging from the ceiling.

The bushfires ravaging her homeland over the past few weeks have taken their toll. “I’ve found myself bursting into tears … just seeing the absolutely harrowing images of what’s happening in Australia – it is overwhelming and terrifying.” Hogan said her lowest point came when she heard about the death of half a billion animals incinerated as the fires swept through the bush. “That was the moment where I felt my heart cleave into two pieces. I felt absolutely distraught.”

The physical impact of the climate crisis is impossible to ignore, but experts are becoming increasingly concerned about another, less obvious consequence of the escalating emergency – the strain it is putting on people’s mental wellbeing, especially the young.

Psychologists warn that the impact can be debilitating for the growing number of people overwhelmed by the scientific reality of ecological breakdown and for those who have lived through traumatic climate events, often on the climate frontline in the global south..

Until two years ago Dr Patrick Kennedy-Williams, a clinical psychologist from Oxford, had spent his career treating common mental health difficulties including anxiety, depression and trauma. Then something new started to happen. Climate scientists and researchers working in Oxford began to approach him asking for help.

“These were people who were essentially facing a barrage of negative information and downward trends in their work … and the more they engaged with the issue, the more they realised what needed to be done – and the more they felt that was bigger than their capacity to enact meaningful change,” he said. “The consequences of this can be pretty dire – anxiety, burnout and a sort of professional paralysis.”

Kennedy-Williams began to research the topic and realised it was not just scientists and researchers who were suffering. “There is a huge need among parents, for instance, who are asking for support on how to talk to their kids about this.”

When Kennedy-Williams began focusing on young people he assumed most would be older teenagers or at least have started secondary school. But he soon discovered worrying levels of environment-related stress and anxiety in much younger children.

“What I was most surprised by is how young the awareness and anxiety starts. My own daughter was just six when she came to me and said: ‘Daddy, are we winning the war against climate change?’ and I was just flummoxed by that question in the moment. It really showed me the importance as a parent of being prepared for the conversation, so we can respond in a helpful way.”

He says there is no way to completely shield young people from the reality of the climate crisis, and argues that would be counterproductive even if it were possible. Rather, parents should talk to their children about their concerns and help them feel empowered to take action – however small – that can make a difference.

A key moment for Kennedy-Williams came with the realisation that tackling “climate anxiety” and tackling the climate crisis were intrinsically linked.

“The positive thing from our perspective as psychologists is that we soon realised the cure to climate anxiety is the same as the cure for climate change – action. It is about getting out and doing something that helps.

“Record and celebrate the changes you make. Nobody is too small. Make connections with other people and at the same time realise that you are not going to cure this problem on your own. This isn’t all on you and it’s not sustainable to be working on solving climate change 24/7.”

This certainly resonates with Hogan, who has set up Force of Nature, an initiative aimed at helping young people realise their potential to create change. Hogan’s group aims to target people aged 11-24 with a crash course in the climate crisis that helps them navigate their anxiety and realise their potential to get involved, take action and make a stand.

“This is only the beginning,” said Hogan. “We’re going to see massive, massive widespread climate crisis in every country around the world, so it’s about developing the emotional resilience to carry on, but in a way that ignites really dramatic individual initiative.”

Beyond climate anxiety – the fear that the current system is pushing the Earth beyond its ecological limits – experts are also warning of a sharp rise in trauma caused by the experience of climate-related disasters.

In the global south, increasingly intense storms, wildfires, droughts and heatwaves have left their mark not just physically but also on the mental wellbeing of millions of people.

For Elizabeth Wathuti, a climate activist from Kenya, her experience of climate anxiety is not so much about the future but what is happening now. “People in African countries experience eco-anxiety differently because climate change for us is about the impacts that we are already experiencing now and the possibilities of the situation getting worse,” she said.

Elizabeth Wathuti, a climate activist from Kenya, says a common worry she hears among students is, ‘We won’t die of old age, we’ll die from climate change’. She works with young people through the Green Generation Initiative she founded and sees the effects of eco-anxiety first-hand. A common worry she hears among students is: “We won’t die of old age, we’ll die from climate change.”

Extreme climate events can create poverty, which exacerbates mental health problems, and Wathuti says she has seen stress, depression and alcohol and drug abuse as some of the side-effects of climate anxiety and trauma in her country.

Even in the UK, a recent study by the Environment Agency found that people who experience extreme weather such as storms or flooding are 50% more likely to suffer from mental health problems, including stress and depression, for years afterwards.

More than 1,000 clinical psychologists have signed an open letter highlighting the impact of the crisis on people’s wellbeing and predicting “acute trauma on a global scale in response to extreme weather events, forced migration and conflict”.

Kaaren Knight, a clinical psychologist who coordinated the letter, said: “The physical impacts related to extreme weather, food shortages and conflict are intertwined with the additional burden of mental health impacts and it is these psychologists are particularly concerned about.”

She added that fear and trauma “significantly reduced psychological wellbeing”, particularly in children. “This is of huge concern to us and needs to be part of the conversation when we talk about climate breakdown.”

One of the high-profile signatories of the letter, Prof Mike Wang, the chair of the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK, said: “Inaction and complacency are the privileges of yesterday … Psychologists are ready and willing to help countries protect the health and wellbeing of their citizens given the inevitable social and psychological consequences of climate change.”

This rallying of the psychological profession around the climate crisis has led to experts around the world forming groups to research and treat the growing number of people caught up in the unfolding crisis, attempting to help them move from fear and paralysis towards action.

But even for those who are following this advice, the scale of the emergency is taking its toll. Kennedy Williams – who has set up his own group, Climate Psychologists, specialising in climate anxiety – said he and his colleagues were not immune from the psychological impacts of the crisis. “This is such a universal thing that [we] have all been through our own set of climate-related grief and despair, and we talk about riding the wave between hope and despair … it is absolutely as real for us as it is for anyone else.”
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on February 12, 2020, 06:30:30 PM
From Carbon Brief

Coal use has to drop like a stone as it is the #1 polluter

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-coal-use-must-plummet-this-decade-to-keep-global-warming-below-1-5c

Of the 3 graphs attached of fossil fuel emissions to 2030, which do you think is most likely to happen?
1- IEA projection,
2 - required for 2  degrees.
3 - required for 1.5 degrees,


I reckon somewhere twixt 1 & 2.

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on March 07, 2020, 09:40:57 PM
10 Predictions for the Solar and Storage Market in the 2020s
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/10-predictions-for-solar-and-storage-in-2020s
Quote
All-in-one systems will be the new normal
1. Lots of storage
2. System costs will increase with the shift toward batteries
3. More battery and inverter packages from the same brand
4. Energy storage systems treated like heat pumps and air conditioners
Standards will evolve
5. Reputation will matter — a lot
6. New safety standards and code requirements catch up to technology
All things will remain technical
7. Real automation and optimization software will outpace flashy interfaces
8. Still waiting for vehicle-to-grid
9. AC and DC coupling will both be around for the foreseeable future
10. Battery pack voltage will increase dramatically
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: gerontocrat on March 11, 2020, 09:31:30 PM
Which large ecosystem will be the first to collapse ?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15029-x.pdf
Regime shifts occur disproportionately faster
in larger ecosystems

Quote
Gregory S. Cooper 1,4, Simon Willcock 2,4 & John A. Dearing3✉
Regime shifts can abruptly affect hydrological, climatic and terrestrial systems, leading to
degraded ecosystems and impoverished societies. While the frequency of regime shifts is
predicted to increase, the fundamental relationships between the spatial-temporal scales of
shifts and their underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Here we analyse empirical
data from terrestrial (n = 4), marine (n = 25) and freshwater (n = 13) environments and
show positive sub-linear empirical relationships between the size and shift duration of systems. Each additional unit area of an ecosystem provides an increasingly smaller unit of time
taken for that system to collapse, meaning that large systems tend to shift more slowly than
small systems but disproportionately faster. We substantiate these findings with five computational models that reveal the importance of system structure in controlling shift duration.
The findings imply that shifts in Earth ecosystems occur over ‘human’ timescales of years and
decades, meaning the collapse of large vulnerable ecosystems, such as the Amazon rainforest
and Caribbean coral reefs, may take only a few decades once triggered.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/10/ecosystems-size-of-amazon-rainforest-can-collapse-within-decades
Ecosystems the size of Amazon 'can collapse within decades'
Large biomes can break down like Jenga bricks once tipping point reached, research finds

Quote
....a study that shows bigger biomes break up relatively faster than small ones.
......the results should warn policymakers they had less time than they realised to deal with the multiple climate and biodiversity crises facing the world.

.....To examine the relationship between an ecosystem’s size and the speed of its collapse, the authors looked at 42 previous cases of “regime shift”. This is the term used to describe a change from one state to another – for example, the collapse of fisheries in Newfoundland, the death of vegetation in the Sahel, desertification of agricultural lands in Niger, bleaching of coral reefs in Jamaica, and the eutrophication of Lake Erhai in China.

They found that bigger and more complex biomes were initially more resilient than small, biologically simpler systems. However, once the former hit a tipping point, they collapse relatively faster because failures repeat throughout their modular structure. As a result, the bigger the ecosystem, the harder it is likely to fall.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Rodius on March 29, 2020, 07:55:28 AM
I suppose this thread should start again given the viral spanner that has been thrown into the works  :o
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on March 29, 2020, 10:09:01 AM
I don't think the virus will change the path ahead very much
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: blumenkraft on March 29, 2020, 11:25:09 AM
There is a slight chance the FF industry takes a hit.

But otherwise, i agree, El Cid. When this is over, business as usual will likely continue.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: El Cid on March 29, 2020, 01:40:39 PM
2020 will likely see less Co2 emissions but other than that I see not much change from 2021 on. However I believe that as wind and partly solar is becoming ever more competitive, there is going to be a big fall in coal production in the 20s as that will become obsolete. Oil and gas will stay strong though. Oil for transports and gas will be needed for turbines that can be switched on and off quickly. Coal is dead.

EDIT: recessions show reduced emissions as energy use falls. So like 2009 I expect 2020 to see lower emissions, see data here:
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-year/
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on May 22, 2020, 12:42:28 PM
I saw this design a couple years ago. I bounced it off a couple aerospace profs i know, they were skeptical. Should follow up, i suppose.

sidd

But over the past two years, technology has not stood. In the United States, General Electric has recently mastered the production of a 12 megawatt turbine with 107 meter blades. The loading factor of this turbine is about 63%. It is likely that by 2030 50 megawatt turbines with 200-meter blades and almost 100% load factor will appear.

This means a complete solution to the problem of energy storage.


Windmills continue to increase power

https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/reference-turbine-gives-offshore-wind-updraft.html

Quote
New Reference Turbine Gives Offshore Wind an Upward Draft

Only one commercial offshore wind farm currently exists in the United States—the Block Island Wind Farm in Block Island, Rhode Island. But market predictions show rapid growth for this industry over the next 10 years in states like New York, Massachusetts, Maine, and Oregon. As the offshore wind industry grows and evolves, engineers and designers need tools that can help develop better-performing, more cost-competitive wind turbines.

Reference wind turbines (RWTs)—open-access designs of a complete wind turbine system, with supporting models for simulation and design—make it possible to evaluate the performance and cost of proposed modifications before prototype development. NREL recently released the International Energy Agency Wind Technology Collaboration Programme 15-megawatt reference turbine, or IEA Wind 15-MW for short, which features options for both fixed-bottom turbines and those with floating substructures. This open-source model, now available on GitHub, can accommodate multiple software tools and will provide industry, researchers, and academics a public-domain tool for designing next-generation offshore wind turbines.

What's the most exciting thing about this reference turbine?

Offshore wind turbines have eclipsed the current slate of reference turbines in terms of size and utility. The IEA Wind 15-MW’s configurations go beyond the capabilities of the 10- to 12-MW turbines already in development by industry, but are similar enough to serve as a baseline for 15- to 20-MW next-generation designs, which means the IEA Wind 15-MW will serve as a valuable development resource for the foreseeable future.



(https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/images/848-reference-turbine.jpg)

The IEA 15-MW is rated for a 15-megawatt turbine with a height of 150 meters and a rotor diameter of 240 meters. Graphic by Joshua Bauer, NREL

(https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/images/fixed-bottom-and-floating-substructures-web.jpg)

The IEA 15-MW features options for both fixed-bottom turbines and those with floating substructures. Graphic by Joshua Bauer, NREL


https://www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/products-and-services/offshore/wind-turbine-sg-14-222-dd

https://www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/newsroom/2020/05/200519-siemens-gamesa-turbine-14-222-dd

Quote
Powered by change: Siemens Gamesa launches 14 MW offshore Direct Drive turbine with 222-meter rotor

SG 14-222 DD offshore wind turbine released with nameplate capacity of 14 MW; can reach 15 MW with Power Boost
222-meter rotor diameter uses massive 108-meter long B108 blades
Lifetime avoidance of approx. 1.4 million tons of CO2 emissions per machine compared to coal-fired power generation
+25% Annual Energy Production increase vs. predecessor machine
Light 500-ton nacelle weight enables optimized substructure at lower cost
Prototype ready in 2021; commercially available in 2024

The winds of change have never been stronger, especially when it comes to meeting the world’s needs for clean, renewable energy. Siemens Gamesa’s new SG 14-222 DD offshore Direct Drive wind turbine now sees the light of day as a part of the solution.

With an unprecedented 14-megawatt (MW) capacity - reaching up to 15 MW using the company’s Power Boost function, a 222-meter diameter rotor, 108-meter long blades, and an astounding 39,000 m2 swept area, the newest Siemens Gamesa wind turbine stands tall in a world currently undergoing enormous upheaval.

“We’ve gone bigger for the better,” states Markus Tacke, CEO of Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, who continues: “Safely and sustainably providing clean energy for our customers and society-at-large is at the core of all we do. The new SG 14-222 DD is a global product which allows all of us take giant steps towards protecting and preserving our planet. We ourselves became carbon neutral in late 2019 and are on track towards meeting our long-term ambition of net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Our installed fleet of over 100 GW both offshore and onshore abates more than 260 million tons of CO2 emissions annually.”

“Offshore is in our DNA,” states Andreas Nauen, CEO of the Siemens Gamesa Offshore Business Unit. “Since we helped create the offshore wind industry in 1991, we’ve been determined to safely increase operational performance, minimize technology risks, and create a consistently lower Levelized Cost of Energy. The SG 14-222 DD demonstrates our drive to lead the way in a world powered by clean energy. In fact, just one unit will avoid approx. 1.4 million tons of CO2 emissions compared to coal-fired power generation over the course of its projected 25-year lifetime,” he adds.

The 14 MW capacity allows one SG 14-222 DD machine able to provide enough energy to power approximately 18,000 average European households every year. Approximately 30 SG 14-222 DD offshore wind turbines could furthermore cover the annual electricity consumption of Bilbao, Spain.

The 222-meter diameter rotor uses the new Siemens Gamesa B108 blades. As long as almost three Space Shuttles placed end-to-end, each 108-meter long IntegralBlade® is cast in one piece using patented Siemens Gamesa blade technologies. Additionally, the turbine’s massive 39,000 m2 swept area is equivalent to approximately 5.5 standard football pitches. It allows the SG 14-222 DD to provide an increase of more than 25% in Annual Energy Production compared to the SG 11.0-200 DD offshore wind turbine.

Furthermore, the new offshore giant features a low nacelle weight at 500 metric tons. This light weight enables Siemens Gamesa to safely utilize an optimized tower and foundation substructure compared to a heavier nacelle. Benefits thus arise in the form of lower costs per turbine by minimizing sourced materials and reducing transportation needs.

Extending on the proven offshore direct drive track record, the SG 14-222 DD is based on Siemens Gamesa’s deep understanding and expertise gained over five product generations since the platform was launched in 2011. Key components such as safety systems, hub and tower concepts, operations and maintenance solutions, along with a strong, qualified supply chain form the basis of the new offshore wind turbine.

(https://www.siemensgamesa.com/en-int/-/media/siemensgamesa/products-and-services/offshore/wind-turbine-sg-14-222-dd/sgre_off-launch_turbine_swept_area_1440x1080_en.png)

Over 1,000 Siemens Gamesa Direct Drive offshore wind turbines have been installed in all major offshore wind markets globally. They include the UK, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Taiwan, among others. Furthermore, confirmed orders for an additional 1,000 Offshore Direct Drive turbines have been received, with installations planned for the markets mentioned above and new offshore markets including the USA and France.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3764IyTTuo
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on May 25, 2020, 12:27:51 PM
Quote
Windmills continue to increase power
Wind turbines, not windmills.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: The Walrus on May 25, 2020, 04:25:26 PM
There is a slight chance the FF industry takes a hit.

But otherwise, i agree, El Cid. When this is over, business as usual will likely continue.

There will likely be some virus-related changes, but other than that, everything will return to normal.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: kassy on May 25, 2020, 06:08:39 PM
We will see. The dutch railway projected quite a big revenue drop. One part is the current measures which restrict travel but they also expect a long term influence from more people working from home. Many businesses finally got to implement that now and if that works it is also a great bonus for the workers.

For 2030 it is more relevant how much of the current accidental reduction we reproduce year after year on purpose until then.   
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: nanning on May 26, 2020, 07:29:38 AM
Working from home will help if those workers are normally commuting by private luxury FF car. Workers who change their (electrical) train commute to working from home won't have much positive effect on carbon footprint.

The revenue drop by the privatised company NS ('Nederlandse Spoorwegen', originally national rail) would suggest a hand-out from the government for this important low CO₂ personal transport, especially since they're running on 'green electricity'.
I haven't seen any hand-outs to the low carbon NS company but I have seen a 2-4 billion hand-out to the private company 'KLM' that offers only very high CO₂ personal transport.

I observe that the BAU trend continues unabated or with even more vigour eyeing the accompanying hand-outs to the FF related industries and billionaires; BAU² (hat-tip to gerontocrat I think), which means the transition to a low carbon economy is further hindered and postponed (politicians/lackeys kicking the can down the road to oblivion).
Saving extraordinary circumstances, I think 2030 will see BAU³ if the neo-liberal dogma's are still prevalent. When will weather extremes become a large/significant/dominating factor in our global economy? Before 2030?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: ralfy on May 26, 2020, 04:31:19 PM
http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/howmuchenergy/

The world currently consumes around 20 TW of energy. Much of the population of that world belong to developing economies and they earn less than $10 daily. They lack one or more basic needs.

To make sure that the current population receives at least basic needs, around 50 TW of energy will be needed.

To meet a population of around 10 billion, it will need around 75 TW.

To ensure continuous economic growth (because most of the wealth of the same population consists of money whose value can only be maintained with increasing economic activity), much more than that.

To adjust to diminishing returns, even more.

What about diminishing returns?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

The ave. ecological footprint per capita is in excess of biocapacity, leading to diminishing returns, pollution, and the effects of pollution, including global warming. Even more energy will be needed to minimize the effects of those problems.

Part of that biocapacity are fossil fuels needed for mining, manufacturing, and shipping of even components needed for renewable energy, not to mention mechanized agriculture.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on May 28, 2020, 06:56:06 PM
The first orders appeared for the largest turbines. Even before a working prototype was built.

https://www.evwind.es/2020/05/26/siemens-gamesa-sg-14-222-dd-offshore-wind-turbines-planned-for-300-mw-hai-long-2-offshore-wind-energy-project-in-taiwan/74872

https://www.power-technology.com/news/deal-news/sgre-wins-turbine-contracts-for-2640mw-virginia-wind-farm/

Although the new record of the Spanish-German company will not last long.

https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/aerodyn-confirms-development-of-111-m-blade-to-market-59580

Quote
Aerodyn confirms development of 111-m blade for offshore market
28 May 2020
by David Foxwell

Aerodyn Energiesysteme in Germany has confirmed earlier reports about a new rotor blade it is developing for next-generation offshore wind turbines

The Rendsburg-based company is developing the 111-m TC1B rotor blade with 11-15 MW offshore wind turbines in mind.

The length of the blade it is developing thus exceeds that of those on GE Renewable Energy’s 12-MW Haliade-X, which are 107 m long, and Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy’s recently announced 15-MW capable SG 14-222 DD direct drive offshore wind turbine, which has 108-m blades.

The company described the new blade as a promising 14-MW pre-design for a TC1B site that can be optimised to take into account turbine rated power, type class and BCD.

“The rotor blade has a hybrid CFRP-GFRP spar caps to reduce the use of costly C-fibres to a minimum,” said the company.

For some time, Aerodyn has also been working on a 10-MW+ offshore wind turbine and components for it and has stated it is ready to enter into production. It previously stated that generator production is planned for Q1 2021.

The company also earlier reported a new focus on turbines and components for the floating wind market.

Aerodyn said it had developed new software and processes to address challenges associated with using very large turbines with floating structures and mooring systems. These include increased movement and hydrodynamic and other forces that affect the dynamics of floating turbines, that result in high acceleration forces on the tower head that may be imparted to the drivetrain.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: jens on June 06, 2020, 08:40:21 PM
Civilization has already peaked. Now in 2020 we have already started to see decline (wildfires, pandemic, economic crisis, social unrests, tropical countries in real trouble with food and water, etc). It is just a light prelude of what is about to come.

What will the world look like in 2030? Well, hard to tell exactly, but a lot will happen during the next 10 years. To give a personal overview of the situation in 2030:

- emissions will have dropped a lot, but not due to switch to renewable energy, but due to global economic collapse. However, this won't save us from climate catastrophe, because a lot of warming is already locked in.

- tropical countries will have largely collapsed by that point. Places like India and Pakistan will have run out of water and will have severe food shortages. Africa will be largely starving. Australia may well have collapsed by that point too. Bushfires, desertification and water shortages will have done the job by then.

- current developed world will have largely turned into a developing world. Rise of totalitarian regimes to keep social order, while people panic as life standards are dropping and poverty sets in. Resource wars and a lot of fences built everywhere to keep migrants away, while countries are busy dealing with their own problems. Concentration camps. Can't tell if we could see a nuclear war by that point, or not.

Doesn't sound pretty? Well, future isn't pretty in any way...

Of course, by 2030 we won't yet have +3/+4C warming, which would make significant parts of the planet uninhabitable. The projected "hothouse Earth" scenario looks more likely to happen either by 2050 or beyond. However, trouble is already real by 2030 due to biosphere degradation and ever-increasing amount of climate disasters. And who knows, which kind of pandemics we could get by that point! There would already be more uninhabitable regions in the world, several regions with severe water shortages and a global food crisis. World human population will have started to decrease already and many of those, who are still alive, would be in severe poverty.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on June 06, 2020, 08:45:26 PM
Well, jens, why don't you tell us the bad news?  :)
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: dnem on June 06, 2020, 10:07:17 PM
Simple question: In what year will human population peak? Right now human births outnumber deaths by ~80 million people a year. When do folks think annual human deaths will outnumber births?

I'll throw out 2034.  I recognize that represents a dramatic, unprecedented demographic shift.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Hefaistos on June 07, 2020, 12:31:57 AM
Simple question: In what year will human population peak? Right now human births outnumber deaths by ~80 million people a year. When do folks think annual human deaths will outnumber births?

I'll throw out 2034.  I recognize that represents a dramatic, unprecedented demographic shift.

Nothing unprecedented, but it will be after 2100.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Line/900
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: dnem on June 07, 2020, 01:00:54 PM
Hefaistos, I am well aware of the standard UN predictions. Jens just posted his prediction that we will be well into civilizational collapse by 2030. He included a list of dire outcomes. He wrote "tropical countries will have largely collapsed by that point. Places like India and Pakistan will have run out of water and will have severe food shortages. Africa will be largely starving."

That would seem to imply global human populations on the decline. Oren frequently asserts he sees "collapse" by 2050 or so. Again, I would suspect that prior to collapse, the general situation for humanity would be such that deaths would be rising and births falling and that deaths would overcome births.

If human populations began to fall in the 2030s that would represent a huge, dramatic and essentially unprecedented change in our demographic trajectory (other than theorized "bottlenecks" during human evolution 10s of thousands of years ago and the Black Death).

I tend to think that if deaths begin to rise and births fall to the extent that we begin to noticeably fall off of the standard demographic predictions leading us to 10 billion later this century, that would be strong evidence that we are indeed in overshoot and exceeding the planet's carrying capacity.

Or maybe we will follow the curve you posted with no hints of trouble until population crashes all at once with no prior hint of trouble. I doubt it.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: jens on June 08, 2020, 09:02:11 AM
The problem with UN projections is that they use a mathematical model based on past data, but don't take into account climate change and the changing environment we are going to live in. I'm not even convinced their population counters would determine the start of decline, because once countries face collapse, who is going to count all the dead bodies to great precision? We can only get a rough guesstimate, when will population start to decrease.

What concerns "collapse" itself, then really depends on what anyone means by it. And in different regions it happens at different times. Tropical areas with overpopulation, close to +50 C heatwaves and acute droughts are really much closer to a tipping point than, say, Nordic countries, who by the looks of it can keep going for a decent while, even if with reduced living standards.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: The Walrus on June 08, 2020, 03:24:45 PM
"The battle to feed all of humanity is over.  Hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in the next decade, in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

“nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

"crowded India is essentially doomed."

"Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come, an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb," 1968
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: kassy on June 08, 2020, 04:02:29 PM
He did not appreciate high yield varieties enough or maybe he did make tons of money over the publicty...   

Off course we have a totally different problem now.

Assume we go to zero CO2 increase tomorrow what will be the locked in effects?

Assume we go to zero CO2 increase on your most likely time table what will be the locked in effects?

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: jens on June 08, 2020, 08:12:45 PM
I have understood back in 1960's there was a different direct reason for doomsday predictions. It was about when "green revolution" started, which greatly increased agricultural productivity. Before this happened, there indeed was concern that it wouldn't be possible to feed all people with old agricultural methods, but it changed.

However, nowadays there is a different situation. Now there is an increasing amount of direct climate disasters, which wasn't the case back then. And I don't see, which technology could halt this, unless they find out quickly, how to capture carbon and reduce the amount of CO2 massively in athmosphere. But such an undertaking seems very unlikely.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: The Walrus on June 08, 2020, 10:15:41 PM
Let's see, the worst cyclone of all time was the Bhola in 1970, which killed half a million people in Bangladesh.  Prior to that, the deadliest cyclones occurred in the 19th century.  The worst floods were all in China during the early 20th century.  The worst droughts in the U.S. occurred in the 1930s and 50s.  Of course, nothing compares to the great Chinese drought of the 1920s, which killed millions (total unknown, but estimates are as high as 10 million).  Ironically, that was followed by the great flood of 1931 mentioned previously.  Do you still believe that this was not the case back then?

Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: oren on June 08, 2020, 11:13:37 PM
Great, someone made a doomsday prediction 50 years ago and was wrong. That should mean no doomsday prediction can be correct, right?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Hefaistos on June 08, 2020, 11:19:21 PM
Let's see, the worst cyclone of all time was the Bhola in 1970, which killed half a million people in Bangladesh.  Prior to that, the deadliest cyclones occurred in the 19th century.  The worst floods were all in China during the early 20th century.  The worst droughts in the U.S. occurred in the 1930s and 50s.  Of course, nothing compares to the great Chinese drought of the 1920s, which killed millions (total unknown, but estimates are as high as 10 million).  Ironically, that was followed by the great flood of 1931 mentioned previously.  Do you still believe that this was not the case back then?

Compare to the current corona pandemic. Maybe it will kill one million people.
The modern world seems to be more resilient to catastrophies.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: The Walrus on June 08, 2020, 11:34:49 PM
Great, someone made a doomsday prediction 50 tears ago and was wrong. That should mean no doomsday prediction can be correct, right?

Has anyone been correct yet?
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: jens on June 08, 2020, 11:40:14 PM

----  Do you still believe that this was not the case back then?

The keyword in my post was increase. Disasters happened in the past too. But it's about frequency. Of course nowadays world has much better ability in dealing with catastrophes. Were a cyclone to arrive, people would be evacuated. Humanitarian aid is sent to regions in trouble. Food aid would be sent to regions in drought. But of course this kind of global resilience has limits. If the frequency of events is too high, you lose capacity to manage and re-build.

A decent example would be to look at the Caribbean islands. An increasing amount of hurricanes has left several islands there in trouble, which have frankly never recovered. I'd say several places have already effectively collapsed there. They lack resources to rebuild and you could get a hurricane in any year again.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: The Walrus on June 09, 2020, 12:15:57 AM

----  Do you still believe that this was not the case back then?

The keyword in my post was increase. Disasters happened in the past too. But it's about frequency. Of course nowadays world has much better ability in dealing with catastrophes. Were a cyclone to arrive, people would be evacuated. Humanitarian aid is sent to regions in trouble. Food aid would be sent to regions in drought. But of course this kind of global resilience has limits. If the frequency of events is too high, you lose capacity to manage and re-build.

A decent example would be to look at the Caribbean islands. An increasing amount of hurricanes has left several islands there in trouble, which have frankly never recovered. I'd say several places have already effectively collapsed there. They lack resources to rebuild and you could get a hurricane in any year again.

There has not been much change in frequency over the long term.  Sure, the trend in Atlantic hurricanes has been on the rise since 1970, but that particularly low time.  Prior to then, the frequency was higher, and the long term trend is relatively flat.  The bigger problem is development.  That has increased significantly, resulting in greater destruction when a hurricane strikes.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: Wherestheice on June 09, 2020, 01:46:27 AM
Simple question: In what year will human population peak? Right now human births outnumber deaths by ~80 million people a year. When do folks think annual human deaths will outnumber births?

I'll throw out 2034.  I recognize that represents a dramatic, unprecedented demographic shift.

Nothing unprecedented, but it will be after 2100.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Line/900

If the human population doesn't peak till after 2100, good lord I will have to pray for every living species on the planet. If we allow that to happen, there won't be much left.

This is why I think we will peak much sooner. The famous study "Limits to growth", is the key to this topic.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: greylib on June 09, 2020, 02:48:10 AM
I believe there are over thirty countries with birth rate below death rate. Some have declining populations, others are sustained by immigration.

The countries with rising populations are mainly in Africa, which is one reason why many African nations have so much trouble feeding their people. The gap is partially bridged by (a) food aid; (b) emigration; (c) famine; (d) wars. The situation is unstable, and has been for at least fifty years. Climate change is making things even worse nowadays. I'm not sure what can be done, but I don't think it's going to end well.

I remember being part of an internet debate ten or fifteen years ago, sparked by a news report about a Nigerian family. The father lived (very poorly) on welfare. He had three wives, two of whom earned a small amount sweeping streets, with the third mending clothes. Between them, the three women had THIRTY children. The debate focused on the simple question: "how can you not feed a hungry child? But if you do, what happens when they grow up and have children of their own?"

The answer's no clearer now than it was then. With the COVID-19 economic shock, a lot of donor countries won't be able to send as much aid as they did. Or at least, they won't want to. And then millions will either die or attempt to emigrate, with richer countries putting up barriers. We're seeing signs of that already - I'd say the policies will be in place well before 2030. And as I said, I don't think it's going to end well.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: jens on June 09, 2020, 09:35:04 AM
Great, someone made a doomsday prediction 50 tears ago and was wrong. That should mean no doomsday prediction can be correct, right?

Has anyone been correct yet?

Eventually some predictions will be correct, but the problem is that when this happens, there won't be people left to reflect on this. And nobody would be able to say "I told you so". However, before "doomsday" people will keep ignoring problems as long as they can, and make a brave face everything is fine.

We are in a classic case of "overshoot and decline", which is basically an operative mechanism in the laws of nature. It's just the question of when "decline"/"collapse"/"doomsday"/whatever happens, not if.

In any case, we don't need to wait till we see the ultimate doomsday happening. We can see that the tide has already turned and civilization has entered decline mode with a multitude of problems happening already now. And it is 2020. By 2030, as per topic, it will be much more amplified.
Title: Re: World of 2030
Post by: dnem on July 06, 2020, 01:48:12 PM
Not quite sure where to put this, but it works here.  His view of the next few decades strikes me as not unreasonable:
https://eand.co/if-life-feels-bleak-its-because-our-civilization-is-beginning-to-collapse-a787d62d714b

If Life Feels Bleak, It’s Because Our Civilization is Beginning to Collapse
2030 Will Be Even Worse than 2020. And 2040 Will Be Even Worse than That. Unless.


There’s an old line from a movie called Office Space — do you remember that one? — that I’ve always loved: “Every day since I began work is worse than the day before it.” That’s kind of an apt summary for…everything…at the moment.

Life isn’t a happy thing right about now. It’s stressful, strange, upside-down. I’m weary with boredom, exhausted by isolation, tired of all the nothing…and I bet you are, too. So.
Is it just me, or living through the end of human civilization kind of…sucks?

There’s not — or there shouldn’t be, by now — any real debate on the point that we are now living through the probable end of human civilization.

The end of human civilization is now easy enough to see, over the next three to five decades. It’s made of climate change, mass extinction, ecological collapse, and the economic depressions, financial implosions, political upheavals, pandemics, plagues, floods, fires, and social breakdowns all those will ignite.

Coronavirus is a foreshadowing, a taste of a dismal future, a warning, and a portrait, too. Life as we know it is falling apart. Life as we know it will continue to fall apart, for the rest of our lives. How do you live through that?

I’m not your therapist, sadly — or luckily. I’m just an economist. So let me paint you a picture.