Can we recover from human caused climate change?

[AFTT47]

I have little doubt that our species will survive climate change. The question is one of quality of life in that survival. The further we ignore it, the poorer the quality of life will be for our descendants.

Eventually, we will migrate into space. It won't take the form of colonizing other planets like Mars which are completely incompatible with our physiology (children will absolutely NOT develop properly in the weak 1/3 gravity of Mars), it will be in the form of artificial colonies in space as visioned by Gerard K O'Neil. From there, we will direct our own evolution and evolve into synthetic creatures which will dwarf us in ways we cannot even imagine. We'll be fine in the long run. We'll evolve into what we could not distinguish from gods.

In the short run though, it's gonna suck. The more we ignore this problem, the harder it will be for our immediate descendants. It may not be a thing for us older folks but the younger generation is going to suffer. They'll still be planet-bound and it will be a planet with considerably less natural charms for them to enjoy. The push into space may come about as an option but the only pleasant option left. Ignore climate change and our children will curse us for it.

[Little lunch]

We're gonna build a whole new world for ourselves.
You know where? Underground.
You should see it down there, hundreds of miles of drains, sweet and clean now, after the rain, dark, quiet, safe.
We can build houses and everything, start from scratch.
And what's so bad about living underground, eh?
S'not been so great living up here, if you want my opinion.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I used to run a discussion forum on this very subject and interest waned once we realised that however we looked at it, we're fucked. Everything is interconnected and everything is increasing / depleting exponentially. The problem is that humans generally do not appreciate what exponential growth is like in advance. This is a good analogy

https://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcour...ng-problem

The only way out is if we get fusion to work (unlikely) or asteroid mining.


I really recommend these books on the subject:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crash-Course-Un...047092764X

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Long-Emergency-...+emergency

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eating-Fossil-F...s=oil+food

(sorry .co.uk versions, should be available on amazon.com)

[pocaracas]

I used to run a discussion forum on this very subject and interest waned once we realised that however we looked at it, we're fucked. Everything is interconnected and everything is increasing / depleting exponentially. The problem is that humans generally do not appreciate what exponential growth is like in advance. This is a good analogy

https://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcour...ng-problem

The only way out is if we get fusion to work (unlikely) or asteroid mining.

Ahem.... Fusion will work.
Keep your eyes out for ITER.

The thing is that Fusion isn't like on Back to the Future, where each car can have its own fusion reactor... it requires a lot of initial input power to get the reaction going... and that requires a large machine.
So the problem then becomes energy storage for small applications, like cars... that will require all cars turning into EVs... and new battery technologies are required for long term storage, fast charging, high current output and large capacity, of course.

If the damage done is recoverable? Most of it, I'd say no. Some is still possible but it would require the major pollutants to stop... China, the US and India... Companies responsible for pollution will only take action if they are forced to by the governments... no imposition from above, means a green light to the least expensive course of action and that we all know what it it.

Unfortunately, this planet is faced with a future climate that is different from what it has been in the past few millennia... Hopefully, GMOs will be able to keep feeding the population.... it is possible that a large part of the world's population will not survive. I've once seen an estimate of how many people can be fed by using the entire land mass for farming and it topped out at 14 billion people. Given that much of the land mass isn't really farmable, I'd say 10 billion is closer to the real absolute maximum of people that can be fed. There is bound to be created some equilibrium condition... and there will be regional variations on population density and feedability (I may have just invented a new word!)

The bigger problem is that this is a global problem that needs to be tackled NOW!.... but the world leaders are short sighted and care only for their small corner of the Earth, thus shoving aside crap to countries that don't have the resources to deal with it.
Like where is all our electronic trash ending up? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/0...rroll-text

The world is producing cheap consumer products at the expense of future cleanup... a cleanup with is going to cost but that cost isn't going into the prices of those products. Who will pay? everyone... sooner or later.

Going underground isn't really a solution, as most of our food requires sunlight. Sure, there are lamps that can replace the sun... but we'd need way too many of such lamps... more trash, not to mention the toxic by-products of producing those lamps.... or anything.
Manufacturing by-products are also a major source of trash... toxic trash... but, as long as most manufacturing is in China, we don't care, huh?
And trash isn't just heavy materials, it's also gasses: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/22/travel...mog-bikes/


Bottom line, yes... it's a huge problem, there have been a few summits where the governments have come together to agree to improve our environmental footprint... but little to nothing came of that. The EU imposed some air quality goals on its cities... and some filters on factory chimneys and a few more controls... all good stuff, but maybe not enough.

In Lisbon, the city is putting up lots of bike lanes to encourage people to use a bike instead of a car... but construction takes time, and people are accustomed to the car; the bike makes you sweat a bit, which forces you to change at the office and offices aren't prepared to handle that... And forget about taking two kids on a single bike! So I guess what I'm saying is that it's a huge effort from the governments, from the local administrations, from the companies, from the people themselves.
The mentality needs to change and it doesn't change overnight... it's a multi-generation change... it will happen. I'm confident humans will outlive this present environmental crisis... but lots of things will have to change.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I would like Alex K's opinion on whether ITER will work. My forum also had a post-doc nuclear physicist but myself I have absolutely no idea and nor would I. Even with a low chance of it working I still think it's important to pile money into to give it maximum chance of success though.

If it does work though then I don't see the problem of it being generated in a single place as being a problem. We already have Tesla cars in mass production and a whole infrastructure built for shipping an oil that could be harnessed for transporting fuel cells.

Pocaracas gives a typical example of the knock-on of any initiative such as more cycle lanes meaning more people need a shower at work. Another is the amount of rare earth minerals and oil needed to create enough renewable energy devices such as solar panels and wind turbines. Recycled rare earth minerals are apparently not as effective due to the contaminants.

The main problem I see is the short-sightedness of those in power and how our systems reward that.

[pocaracas]

I would like Alex K's opinion on whether ITER will work. My forum also had a post-doc nuclear physicist but myself I have absolutely no idea and nor would I. Even with a low chance of it working I still think it's important to pile money into to give it maximum chance of success though.

Nuclear fusion is an engineering problem, not a physics one. The physics is sound.
ITER is a tokamak design, one of the easiest to design, but not the most efficient.
I fully expect the Stellarator design to overtake the tokamak in a few decades.
But ITER is, as far as we are concerned, the first stepping stone... the first that is actually designed to produce more energy than that which has to be poured into it.
Not yet designed to extract that energy and dump it on the grid... but to show that such should be possible.

If it does work though then I don't see the problem of it being generated in a single place as being a problem. We already have Tesla cars in mass production and a whole infrastructure built for shipping an oil that could be harnessed for transporting fuel cells.

I know we have Teslas and Nissan Leafs (or is it Leaves? ), but their range is quite limited when compared with an equivalent gasoline or diesel powered car. They're improving... there is hope in that direction.
And it's good to see major manufacturers, like Nissan, hopping on that wagon.

The main problem I see is the short-sightedness of those in power and how our systems reward that.

aye.
Short sightedness...

[Minimalist]

We're fucked.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/scott-pr...2-truther/

Scott Pruitt is a CO2 Truther

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency says carbon emissions aren’t to blame for the greenhouse effect. On Thursday, during an appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Pruitt insisted that CO2 emission are not the primary cause of global warming.

Glad I'm old and don't have grandchildren.

[Edwardo Piet]

Nope, we'll never recover from human caused climate change.

All the efforts to make it better by good intentioned people are nothing compared to all the idiots who don't give a fuck.

[Thumpalumpacus]

At any rate, knowing we will some day go extinct, does that mean we should give up and just let it happen?  Does it mean we should behave completely irresponsibly?

Of course not. Where'd you get the idea that I needed to be told this?

[trev22]

At any rate, knowing we will some day go extinct, does that mean we should give up and just let it happen?  Does it mean we should behave completely irresponsibly?

Of course not. Where'd you get the idea that I needed to be told this?

This i doubt, it's impossible..........