• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

20 Years and it all goes to s*. Climate Change. Hossenfelder.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ivwshane said:
What people don’t understand is that humans at the individual level are stupid. We barely could survive on our own. However, as a collective we are very intelligent…provided that there is a shared belief and acceptance of institutions such as education and scientific ones. And that’s the problem we have now, we are losing faith or becoming distrustful of those institutions and that shared knowledge we once had is going to the wayside.
Click to expand...
100% and its the argument Ive been using against anti vax people irl work or otherwise, if you chose not to trust in these institutions on what basis do you trust ANY institutions… And if you trust no institutions then how do you rationalize how we’ve become what we are?
 
You know, if you think Boomers has it bad in terms of generational legacy, we’re the generation that failed to turn it around.

Just saying.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
The fun thing is, the next 20 is already baked in. Changes we make today affect 30, 40 years and beyond.

View attachment 92629
Click to expand...
I keep saying it'll take two generations to really turn around our CO2 output. One for a generation to die off** and a second to be faced with such dire problems force a reckoning. This just isn't the US that has to change - but many other countries as well. At least the EU is making a good go of it (till the RU/UKR war pushed some EU countries back to, uh, coal). It's going to be a bitch for some of us younger Boomers (like me - born in the last year of the boomer generation) and older GenXers to watch the world burn in our later years.



** Reminds me of the Jews having to wander in the desert for 40 years - theologians suggest that part of that time was to let the older generation die off before starting a new nation. The older generation was too inured in the old ways to form the basis of the new nation God was preparing.
 
cytg111 said:
You know, if you think Boomers has it bad in terms of generational legacy, we’re the generation that failed to turn it around.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The younger generations will get the blame for doing nothing and the cycle will continue. I have faith in the younger generations though, they seem to be more idealistic and I think they’ll at least enact policies that look good, even if they don’t solve or lessen the problem.
 
This was not unknown. Climate scientists for years have been going with the conservative numbers because too many fucking assholes call them alarmist if they dare to speak truth (thanks, OP!). I think since the 90s, or at least since Bush after those fuckwads basically threatented to pull all funding if they didn't downplay things, and then they had to get even more conservative after dumbfucks like the South Park dickheads spent years trashing Al Gore and climate scientists (oh yeah, Trey/Matt, I'm sure a fucking geologist knows more about climate science than you know, climate scientists...fucking twats). But the evidence that its much closer to worst case scenario has been known for probably a decade if not 15 years already at this point.

Hell, go watch Werner Herzog's Encounters at the End of the World, which I think was made in 2006, all the scientists there had basically resigned themselves to the fact that climate change was an atmosphere level train heading right at us and we had pretty much already doomed ourselves. But unfortunately, people would call them alarmist so they can ignore them, til they want to all of a sudden pretend to give a shit and then go "why weren't they telling us how bad it was?!?"
 
cytg111 said:
It's going to shit gentlemen. End of days. Smell you later.
Click to expand...
You know what's the really sad thing? Some opportunistic people will start dreaming up new business models and entire industries to aid human survival when such a catastrophe hits, instead of fixing the core problem. That's us. We would rather build huge carbon sequestration systems instead of limiting carbon output (which is arguably the much, much easier thing to do).
 
feralkid said:
Thank you...

I was getting close to having to caution certain posters (who like to place the blame on an entire demographic), that they could be well on the road to fascism by flirting with one of its principle tenets:
  • "Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause"
Not a good look at all.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between identifying scapegoats and identifying enemies.
 
cytg111 said:
You know, if you think Boomers has it bad in terms of generational legacy, we’re the generation that failed to turn it around.

Just saying.
Click to expand...
Aside from conservatism spending decades either denying climate change is a thing but grudgingly moving on to "but is it caused by humanity" then grudgingly moving on to "it's too late to do anything now anyway", rather like:


It's not like the boomers have let go of the reins for younger generations yet either. The youngest boomers are basically at an age where they're likely to hold the highest offices. They're meant to be an age where wisdom and experience is at its peak, tempering more radical and less thought-out approaches with a more forward-thinking perspective, and instead we've got a bunch of reality-deniers who want to make a quick buck, leaving a bill for future generations to cover.

I bet this whole problem could have been averted if the tone from my 80s childhood had continued, like "Ozone layer hole? CFC gases? Pass legislation to ban that shit, problem solved", or for example in the UK there was once a drive to clean up our rivers and beaches. Solar panels should have been a standard on all house builds for decades. Millions of public money channelled into researching green energy, no subsidies for fossil fuels.

Instead, humanity got suckered by conservatives, made-up crises, and industry lobbyists. Conservatives rolling back environmental protections when we should be doubling down on making ever more stringent environmental protection policies. Our only choice for survival now is to adopt a revolutionary, world-wide effort that involves a lot of pain and change for the general population, and the only way to achieve that would be to have leaders who truly believe in the necessity and with the influence and integrity of history's most famous figures who have pushed for peace and equality.

Rant over, for now.
 
cytg111 said:
So basically it turns out that some old "worst case scenario" climate models that has been disregarded in mainstream science as unlikely has advanced from unlikely to probable.

Watch the video, cloud formations, super cooled water blabla... The point is that everything starts going to shit in about 20 years time.

Sabine is not an alarmist so when she makes these predictions I pay attention. Dont get me wrong, those 20 may turn into 30 or 40 but it's still inevitable.

(Wonder what kind of climate related geopolitical pressure countries can tolerate before war and nukes.)

It's going to shit gentlemen. End of days. Smell you later.

- Wouldnt it be something if the best period to be alive was the cocaine fueled 80'ies?


Click to expand...
I kinda of like it when she loses he cool for a moment. It’s not like her, so it really brings the point home. Also interesting to see a German say, 'nuclear, nuclear, nuclear' as part of her closing points. Wind, solar and nuclear - anything to slow down and reverse the rate of use of fossil fuels (yes it’s increasing). That, and spending a Trillion or so dollars on the Grid, at least in the US.

I’ve been yapping about nuclear power in various ways for the past decade. Shortly after watched an ~3 hour lecture on Gen IV nuclear power plants (mostly MSR variants) and did some follow-up research.



Just a couple of small notes for posterity. It was boomers working at NASA who made the first observations that climate change existed and was mainly attributable to CO2 from human activities. Also, a boomer (Gore) was the first politician in high office to openly point out the risk that climate change posed. Also, many of us here wouldn't exist if boomers hadn't gotten married and had a bunch of kids 😛
 
Here's a clip from the video showing the predicted global temperature increase:

1706630707623.png

By 2050, we could see an additional 2.5degC rise in temps compared to today; bringing the total to 4degC over the early industrial age. This is likely to coincide with the end of my life, assuming I don't die early of some terrible disease. My younger nieces and nephews will be in their 50s. Their kids (only two so far) in their 30s. The acceleration in effort to decarbonize our energy and transport infrastructure would need to be massive over the next twenty years in order to lower that number. Sadly, climate impacts aren't quite severe enough for most governments to go full WWII level of action in order to prevent this.
 

Attachments

  • 1706630663126.png
    1706630663126.png
    82 KB · Views: 4
  • Fundamentally the problem is the how many molecules of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are in the atmosphere trapping heat
  • Increasing fossil fuel use accelerates the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere accelerating heat retention
  • Decreasing fossil fuel use decelerates the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere (still increasing CO2 and heat retention though)
  • Decreasing fossil fuel use can occur through less energy demand or replacement via 0 CO2 power generation (renewables & nuclear)
  • Once the combination of energy demand and 0 CO2 power replaces all fossil fuel sources 0 additional CO2 will end up in the atmosphere however the planet will still continue heating until energy in = energy out.
  • To lower the amount heat absorbed the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can't remain constant - it must be reduced
  • Natural processes will remove some of the CO2
  • Man-made processes can be used to reduce the ultimate peak temperature and time spent above pre-industrial levels mitigating some climate impacts
So lets see where we are at:
Screenshot 2024-01-30 at 10-25-31 Energy Production and Consumption.png
This is a noisy graph but it appears to be trending down. Once it is consistently below 0% then our worldwide energy demand will be decreasing.



Screenshot 2024-01-30 at 10-26-56 Energy Production and Consumption.png
Total global power usage was 178,000 TWH with 0 CO2 sources supplying about 17%. The tip of the chart shows that the rate of increase is slowing, matching our first chart. Sometime in the next couple of years it's possible we reach a constant amount global power required.

Screenshot 2024-01-30 at 10-27-11 Renewable Energy.png
At the end of 22 renewables for electrical generation (different from primary energy consumption which includes everything not just electricity) was around 8000TWH. The interesting thing was from the start of the graph at~1000TWH in 1965 it took about 20 years to double and then another 25 years double again. The third doubling which started in 2012 at 4000+TWH only took 12 years. The increase in renewable energy is hitting the steep part of the S curve. The next doubling may only take 6-8 years. It's entirely possible that renewables and decreasing energy demand will allow complete replacement of fossil fuel sources in the next 4 doublings - potentially in the 2050 time-frame.

At that point the problem will stop getting worse. To get better will require CO2 remediation from the atmosphere and/or oceans.
 
Paratus said:
  • Fundamentally the problem is the how many molecules of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are in the atmosphere trapping heat
  • Increasing fossil fuel use accelerates the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere accelerating heat retention
  • Decreasing fossil fuel use decelerates the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere (still increasing CO2 and heat retention though)
  • Decreasing fossil fuel use can occur through less energy demand or replacement via 0 CO2 power generation (renewables & nuclear)
  • Once the combination of energy demand and 0 CO2 power replaces all fossil fuel sources 0 additional CO2 will end up in the atmosphere however the planet will still continue heating until energy in = energy out.
  • To lower the amount heat absorbed the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can't remain constant - it must be reduced
  • Natural processes will remove some of the CO2
  • Man-made processes can be used to reduce the ultimate peak temperature and time spent above pre-industrial levels mitigating some climate impacts
So lets see where we are at:
View attachment 92761
This is a noisy graph but it appears to be trending down. Once it is consistently below 0% then our worldwide energy demand will be decreasing.



View attachment 92764
Total global power usage was 178,000 TWH with 0 CO2 sources supplying about 17%. The tip of the chart shows that the rate of increase is slowing, matching our first chart. Sometime in the next couple of years it's possible we reach a constant amount global power required.

View attachment 92765
At the end of 22 renewables for electrical generation (different from primary energy consumption which includes everything not just electricity) was around 8000TWH. The interesting thing was from the start of the graph at~1000TWH in 1965 it took about 20 years to double and then another 25 years double again. The third doubling which started in 2012 at 4000+TWH only took 12 years. The increase in renewable energy is hitting the steep part of the S curve. The next doubling may only take 6-8 years. It's entirely possible that renewables and decreasing energy demand will allow complete replacement of fossil fuel sources in the next 4 doublings - potentially in the 2050 time-frame.

At that point the problem will stop getting worse. To get better will require CO2 remediation from the atmosphere and/or oceans.
Click to expand...
Not quite.. at that point we'll stop putting co2 in the atmosphere in large quantities, which means 20 years later we'll see the final effects of our additions to the atmosphere resolved. Now at that point we'll also be tracking the aftereffects of our co2 release, including the melting of permafrost and subsequent release of methane pockets, the dying off of life in the oceans and subsequent algal and bacterial blooms, releasing sequestered carbon. Increasing wildfires reducing plant coverage, and potentially die-offs of the arboreal forests from encroachment of southern heat. Subsequent heating from those effects as well as melting of the ice caps/tundra, and follow-on effects from that warming and we'll probably be looking for stability around 50 years after the last coal and oil plants are shut down.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Not quite.. at that point we'll stop putting co2 in the atmosphere in large quantities, which means 20 years later we'll see the final effects of our additions to the atmosphere resolved. Now at that point we'll also be tracking the aftereffects of our co2 release, including the melting of permafrost and subsequent release of methane pockets, the dying off of life in the oceans and subsequent algal and bacterial blooms, releasing sequestered carbon. Increasing wildfires reducing plant coverage, and potentially die-offs of the arboreal forests from encroachment of southern heat. Subsequent heating from those effects as well as melting of the ice caps/tundra, and follow-on effects from that warming and we'll probably be looking for stability around 50 years after the last coal and oil plants are shut down.
Click to expand...
Alluded to the continued heating after reaching bet 0 carbon already. Sorry if my last point confused the issue.

Technically if we are removing CO2 from the atmosphere we’ll cut the peak off of the negative effects, I.e. the negative effects 50 years after we reach 0 additional man made CO2 will be better if we’re pulling CO2 out than if we do nothing, or said another way Earth will reach thermal equilibrium faster and begin cooling sooner than if we do nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top