What if the rules of the game have already sealed our fate? This is a brutal mathematical reality: an unstoppable, self-reinforcing chain reaction in the Earth’s climate system is now underway.
This is an excellent piece of work, and will, I'm sure, be the subject of much debate. Some of which might be well informed!
May I add a few comments?
I agree that the total picture modelling has been sadly lacking. I have been waiting for the IPCC or Hansen or somebody to produce modelling combining global heating predictions with a turnoff of AMOC, the Atlantic gyre that keeps Europe warm. Such an event will be catastrophic for much of Europe, but may also refreeze the Artic and increase albedo, at least for a while. But how does the balance between heating and cooling actually look in the models?
Secondly, beneath the Antarctic ice there are a number of volcanoes and , as the ice melts and the land rebounds (a well known phenomenon), it seems likely that increased volcanic activity will push more sulphates and particulates into the atmosphere. Perhaps massively more. I have also previously questioned whether hotter land and warmer oceans will expand tectonic plates, perhaps causing more earthquakes and volcanic activity at fault lines and subduction zones, with similar effects.
Next, methane clathrates under the ocean. The quantities are massive, and the potential for acceleration of global heating is also massive. This waxy semi-solid of methane and water is held in place by a combination of water pressure and cold temperatures. Previous research has suggested a slow release over decades, but I disagree. Those methane clathrates are all held in place within a narrow band of temperatures, because any that were in shallower water (i.e. lower pressure) or warmer water (during El Nino events, for example) must have already been released. This means that increasing water temperatures, as has recently been recorded, must at some point release vast quantities of Methane that is balanced on a hair trigger of water temperature change. Such releases would be rocket fuel for rapid atmospheric warming.
Lastly, human population, and the effects of destruction or collapse of people. What would, for example, be the effects of 25% fewer humans, and the consequent reduction in their emissions? What about 50%? What would be the differences between, say 25% fewer of wealthy Westerners, compared to similar numbers of poor farmers in India or Africa. What about mass migration? What about severe regional food shortages and even regional wars? In short, the social consequences of human attempts at adaption, and the many humans failures to move or adapt, on the speed of the unfolding disasters? How much is now locked in by previous mistakes, and what mitigation might occur if a 59% population collapse included most of the Western fossil fuelled consumption, for example.
These are the elements I think need to be included in your 'Omni-Model' for the next 50 years, if we are to make informed choices, especially if we are to decide whether to try climate engineering, which I personally think is too dangerous to consider, when the real solutions are to stop emitting carbon!
I would also suggest that the creation and development of an 'Omni-Model' should be an international effort, a collaboration including ALL countries, so that the results may have some international credibility. I would have said under the IPCC, except for the disgraceful political oversight that suppresses truthful results, and its poor record so far in predicting actual current changes. (Possibly related subjects!)
Thanks again for putting this out there! I look forward to seeing the informed comments.
As complex as all the interdependent variables, it would be interesting if we can factor in Trump’s devastating attack on science, scientific research and in particular global Earth and climate science.
100 years is a long time. 100 years ago if an asteroid was headed toward Earth we would say our prayers and get the popcorn. Today we track all the most dangerous ones and have a real chance of at least thinking about doing something to stop it. Over the next 100 years our technology is likely to result in similar revolutions, possibly some impacting the problem you have detailed.
Obviously this is not something to take to the bank, but it's risky to extrapolate into the future without taking such things into account. Who knows, we may have effectively limitless energy in the next 5 decades. Or we might nuke the entire planet in the next 24 minutes.
In the longer term, even if we solve this particular problem, we will inevitably destroy or enslave ourselves with technological progress. The latter option is effectively us creating God through technology, a prospect which makes the Garden of Eden analogy with the tree of knowledge eerily prescient.
I appreciate the breakdown, but isn’t it much easier simply to say that, all things considered, we seem to be on the sharp end of a bell curve?
I’d then ask that you look at Bill Bailey’s All Things Considered sketch, just for a laugh, before tutting and raising your eyebrows at me.
What you explain in great detail here is, I believe, the way of all things in this universe, if not the meaning of life then the underlying structure of its nature.
This is an excellent piece of work, and will, I'm sure, be the subject of much debate. Some of which might be well informed!
May I add a few comments?
I agree that the total picture modelling has been sadly lacking. I have been waiting for the IPCC or Hansen or somebody to produce modelling combining global heating predictions with a turnoff of AMOC, the Atlantic gyre that keeps Europe warm. Such an event will be catastrophic for much of Europe, but may also refreeze the Artic and increase albedo, at least for a while. But how does the balance between heating and cooling actually look in the models?
Secondly, beneath the Antarctic ice there are a number of volcanoes and , as the ice melts and the land rebounds (a well known phenomenon), it seems likely that increased volcanic activity will push more sulphates and particulates into the atmosphere. Perhaps massively more. I have also previously questioned whether hotter land and warmer oceans will expand tectonic plates, perhaps causing more earthquakes and volcanic activity at fault lines and subduction zones, with similar effects.
Next, methane clathrates under the ocean. The quantities are massive, and the potential for acceleration of global heating is also massive. This waxy semi-solid of methane and water is held in place by a combination of water pressure and cold temperatures. Previous research has suggested a slow release over decades, but I disagree. Those methane clathrates are all held in place within a narrow band of temperatures, because any that were in shallower water (i.e. lower pressure) or warmer water (during El Nino events, for example) must have already been released. This means that increasing water temperatures, as has recently been recorded, must at some point release vast quantities of Methane that is balanced on a hair trigger of water temperature change. Such releases would be rocket fuel for rapid atmospheric warming.
Lastly, human population, and the effects of destruction or collapse of people. What would, for example, be the effects of 25% fewer humans, and the consequent reduction in their emissions? What about 50%? What would be the differences between, say 25% fewer of wealthy Westerners, compared to similar numbers of poor farmers in India or Africa. What about mass migration? What about severe regional food shortages and even regional wars? In short, the social consequences of human attempts at adaption, and the many humans failures to move or adapt, on the speed of the unfolding disasters? How much is now locked in by previous mistakes, and what mitigation might occur if a 59% population collapse included most of the Western fossil fuelled consumption, for example.
These are the elements I think need to be included in your 'Omni-Model' for the next 50 years, if we are to make informed choices, especially if we are to decide whether to try climate engineering, which I personally think is too dangerous to consider, when the real solutions are to stop emitting carbon!
I would also suggest that the creation and development of an 'Omni-Model' should be an international effort, a collaboration including ALL countries, so that the results may have some international credibility. I would have said under the IPCC, except for the disgraceful political oversight that suppresses truthful results, and its poor record so far in predicting actual current changes. (Possibly related subjects!)
Thanks again for putting this out there! I look forward to seeing the informed comments.
Thank you.
As complex as all the interdependent variables, it would be interesting if we can factor in Trump’s devastating attack on science, scientific research and in particular global Earth and climate science.
100 years is a long time. 100 years ago if an asteroid was headed toward Earth we would say our prayers and get the popcorn. Today we track all the most dangerous ones and have a real chance of at least thinking about doing something to stop it. Over the next 100 years our technology is likely to result in similar revolutions, possibly some impacting the problem you have detailed.
Obviously this is not something to take to the bank, but it's risky to extrapolate into the future without taking such things into account. Who knows, we may have effectively limitless energy in the next 5 decades. Or we might nuke the entire planet in the next 24 minutes.
In the longer term, even if we solve this particular problem, we will inevitably destroy or enslave ourselves with technological progress. The latter option is effectively us creating God through technology, a prospect which makes the Garden of Eden analogy with the tree of knowledge eerily prescient.
Don't sweat it dude, AI will have gassed us all well before then
Couldn’t we just plant a lot of trees as the human population declines too?
Change the Rules of Engagement
CALL BARCLAYS BANK FORCE PARLIAMENT TO
ADDRESS THE CLIMATE CRISIS
Call in mass, block their phones, disrupt their business, and cost them a bloody fortune.
Parliament will address the Climate Crisis... or lose Barclays Bank and risk a stock crash.
Never mind the human race , sunshine , you better pull your head out of your arse , before you go extinct.
Still a small price to pay for saving humanity via a rant on substack that 2 men and a dog will read.
Sincerely Fido
I hope not but we, as a species, certainly deserve it.
Speak for yourself
Except for me. I should stay alive, I reckon
Excellent. Hopefully it occurs sooner than later.
Absolutely
I am among thr freeist
Sure. Why not.
Thanks for sharing.
I appreciate the breakdown, but isn’t it much easier simply to say that, all things considered, we seem to be on the sharp end of a bell curve?
I’d then ask that you look at Bill Bailey’s All Things Considered sketch, just for a laugh, before tutting and raising your eyebrows at me.
What you explain in great detail here is, I believe, the way of all things in this universe, if not the meaning of life then the underlying structure of its nature.
Build nuclear power ffs
😂🤪🤣
Computer, zoom out!
Doesn't Hansen suggest 4C by 2100 and 10C by the year 3200 (or something pretty far out)?
Same outcome; just different numbers I suppose.