Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese


Forum Home Forum Home > General Discussion > General Discussion > Off Topic Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - If Fossil fuels were gone tommrow...
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Online Discussion: Tracking new emerging diseases and the next pandemic

If Fossil fuels were gone tommrow...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: If Fossil fuels were gone tommrow...
    Posted: October 05 2019 at 10:22pm
How many people would die? I would hazard to guess with today's technology sans fossils the carrying capacity of the world would probably be about half of what it is today IF That. Within a couple decades (or less) there would probably be several billion less people on the Earth. Almost everything that we like that makes us comfortable heavily relies on fossil fuels.

If Global warming Is real AND we do nothing about it.... in 50 years do you see Billions less on mother Earth?   I seriously doubt it.   Yes life maybe a bit more difficult but we will adapt.   Even after a 100 years they are only talking about maybe a foot of sea level rise. With the way technology advances exponentially.... our Grand Kids will be fine, they will figure it out.

Even if Global Warming IS real I feel that the cure is worse than the disease. To me this is the greatest argument against global warming... Prove me Wrong!
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2019 at 10:42pm
<deleted>
Back to Top
EdwinSm, View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: April 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 7495
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote EdwinSm, Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 05 2019 at 11:01pm
Pick a number from back in time, before the population started to grow with large use of fossil fuel.    You will find that your estimate of population halving seems overtly optimistic in the scenario that you gave.


ps. I cannot emotionally grasp that that would mean - the reduction would be absolutely horrendous. Like I cannot grasp the idea that around half of all humanity (from its beginning) is supposed to be alive today!
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28381
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 12:04am
To You only have to look at what happens when there's a power cut......

To see what happens with no fossil fuels...
12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 9:39am
Yea Carbon of course if all our fuel disappeared in a day... 90%+ of us would be gone in 6 months.   On the other hand... if we had 5-10 years do you believe we could then make the transition seamlessly?
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 10:31am
Edwin yes your chart is very eye opening...   however over that time frame there has been other technological advantages besides fossil fuels, so it might not be that bad.
Back to Top
FluMom View Drop Down
Senior Admin Group
Senior Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: February 11 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 19746
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote FluMom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 6:53pm
I have always Prepped with the fact we would not have oil/gas/electric. I have always kept 4 - 5 cords of wood so I would have at least 2 winters of needed warmth. I have put in a full set of fire bricks and getting a full set of glass for my insert. I have the theory sh^t happens! I have put in two man felling saws, along with sharpening tools and many ways to split logs. I need to build a folding buck holder. I have the plans just need to do it. If you have heat and a way to cook it helps.

Put in seeds but need to put in more seeds. Back of my house faces south so it will be planted in food. I would put in chickens and rabbits but not up for that at this time.

Water is close enough I can get it an sanitize it. Have all the methods to do that also.

I have left information on all of this information in notebooks so my son will have some help if I am gone.

Like a pandemic some will live and some will die! Just the way it is.
Always Be Prepared
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 9:15pm

https://www.apnews.com/933b49681b0d47d3a005d356f35251ab

As a person with right wing leanings... I find it hilarious that this is coming from Micheal Moore of all people.

Alternative Energy is still just an alternative.   Even after decades and billion in development we don't have anything ready for prime time.

What choice do we have?
Back to Top
EdwinSm, View Drop Down
Adviser Group
Adviser Group


Joined: April 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 7495
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote EdwinSm, Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2019 at 11:06pm
Originally posted by DeepThinker DeepThinker wrote:

however over that time frame there has been other technological advantages besides fossil fuels, so it might not be that bad.


For me what is of more concern is human reaction.

For example when the are wide spread power cuts in cities, it is not unusual for riots to break out.

I think that in a rapid power down (with fossil fuels this could say a political act such as shutting down the Straits of Hormuz) public discord will create a lot of extra problems.
Eg if rioters burn down a supermarket, that will mean it is unlikely to be rebuilt and all the people in that locality have lost a chance to get food in the future and so this makes their long term chance of survival that much worst.

As for technology, that will buy some time. Say having solar power with a battery backup will work as long as the batteries last. This will mean that you could outlast many people, but in the long term it is not much good. A small hydro-power system might last a lot longer, but few of us will have that.    What would you cook on? Wood (biomass) stoves are great, but with the current population levels the wood supply would not last long, leading to an ecological collapse not experienced in the pre-fossil fuel era.

I suppose if you are looking at technology you need to look at what used to be called "appropriate technology" - ie simple systems, that are still in advance of the middle ages. eg Silos to hold green fodder (better than just drying hay), solar cookers (for when the sun is shining), good wood-burning cooking stove (using about 1/3rd of the wood of an open fire). A well insulated house will help, but most houses are just too large for a power down situation. In housing passive solar or planting shade trees depending on the geographic location might be more sustainable than heat exchange pumps.

(sorry for rambling thoughts - the wife calls so no time to edit the above!)
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 56070
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 12:31am
FluMom has it about right.

"Sh1t Happens!"

If you look at human history and pre-history, you find THOUSANDS (I'm not exaggerating) thousands of extinct civilizations. An extant one like ours is a rarity by comparison. Disease, climate change, invasion, sea level rise, are all among the culprits.

Modern people seem to think their civilization, protected as it is by its size and technology, is invincible. I'll bet the ancient Romans thought that too - As did the Greeks,
Accadians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Mesopotamians    Sumarians.....................
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28381
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 2:46am
Our arrogance will be our downfall....
12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Chief Moderator
Chief Moderator
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 43036
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 2:52am
Another consideration is the vast amount of fertilizer made using natural gas by the Haber-Bosch process. That discovery kicked off a new phase of human population growth. It's believed that half the nitrogen in our cells might have come from the Haber-Bosch process.






https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38305504

"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28381
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 2:27pm
The Haber-Bosch,system ,saved billions from starvation,

Unfortunately what people did was to have More Children....


https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

It took a thousand years to put the first   billion people on this planet

We are now putting 1 billion souls on this planet every 7/8years............

We are the only species of animal that has changed its environment......for the worst.....

We are on a path of self destruction......

Imagine the Earth as a spaceship......it is..... On a endless loop going round an round the same course,

For Millions of years it was populated by Dinosaurs,they didn't burn any fossil fuel they could have it was there before they evolved,
Then a comet wiped them out, fast forward 65 million years, a creature came along, started digging up carbon that has been stored for Millions of years,changing the chemistry of the planets atmosphere.....

Will they last as long as the Dinosaurs...mmmm..

not very likely..

Dumb and Dumber
12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28381
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 4:32pm
SHARE
Climate change means geoengineering under pressure to keep our CO2 budgets under control
ABC Science / By Malcolm Sutton
Posted1 day ago, updated3 days ago
Ship tracks viewed from space
Reflective clouds created by human industries like shipping can be seen from space.(Supplied: NASA)
It's 2029 and every merchant ship in the world is fertilising the ocean with iron — a last-ditch effort to draw carbon dioxide from the air as global emissions near the point of no return.

This global attempt to remove CO2 from the atmosphere has been 11 years in the making — since 2018, when the IPCC Global Warming of 1.5C special report warned that emissions reductions alone would not be enough to restrict global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would also be required.

Key points:
Carbon dioxide removal techniques will be required to restrict global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to the 2018 IPCC report
A UN Expert Group has reviewed potential marine geoengineering techniques to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
Carbon removal at a global scale needs to be in effect within 10 years, experts said
The hope is that the powdered iron will trigger a bloom of phytoplankton that will remove a gigatonne of CO2 from the atmosphere, by taking the carbon to the ocean floor when they die.

There's evidence to support the concept — iron-stimulated blooms have been observed in nature for some time, sparked by events such as the 2010 eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, and Saharan desert dust plumes.

In 2029, it's just one of a number of ideas about to be employed across the planet to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Proposed marine geoengineering techniques
A recent working group reviewed a wide range of proposed marine geoengineering techniques.(Supplied: GESAMP)
How best to remove CO2?
Back in the present, and as signs of global warming continue to mount, a push is on to find ways to draw CO2 from the atmosphere.

"It's now abundantly clear from the IPCC 1.5C special report that if we're going to restrict warming to 2 degrees or less, then mitigation of the reduction of emissions on its own is not enough," said Philip Boyd, professor of marine biogeochemistry at the University of Tasmania.

"We have to go beyond that and we now have to intervene in the climate."

Professor Boyd recently co-chaired a working group for the UN advisory organisation, Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) that reviewed 27 potential marine geoengineering techniques that had been studied or modelled to varying degrees worldwide.

The group particularly focused on:

Iron fertilisation across 10 per cent of the Earth's oceans by utilising every merchant ship in the world
Adding lime to 10 per cent of the oceans to enhance alkalinity, increase CO2 uptake and counter seawater acidity
Drawing up cool, nutrient-rich water from the depths with large pipes to create an artificial upwelling that provokes algal blooms while also cooling the ocean's surface
Injecting liquified CO2 into the seabed in depressions and trenches where it can be stored for 1,000 years
Increasing the ocean's reflectivity by drawing up cold water to increase Arctic ice thickness, or by adding foams, micro-bubbles or reflective particles to the surface
Brightening marine clouds by spraying fine seawater into low lying stratocumulus clouds to increase their reflectivity and reduce surface temperatures
Farming seaweed on a large scale before entombing it deep in the ocean to sequester its carbon, or process it for biofuels
In short, the group found a lot of potential. But more research, modelling and pilot programs are required, especially in consideration of the massive scales required.

"What we are trying to do now is put some incentives out there, create some of these models for feedback," Professor Boyd said.

"But right now I can't see any one of them sticking out head-and-shoulders above the rest."

Sahara dust storm over the Atlantic
Saharan dust storms over the Atlantic ocean fertilise oceans with iron minerals.(Supplied: NASA)
Old concepts and natural evidence
The concept of using reflective particles to reduce warming was floated as early as 1965, when scientific advisors to US President Lyndon Johnson recognised that increased CO2 in the atmosphere could bring about climatic change.

They raised the prospect of spreading small reflective particles over large oceanic areas in an effort to reduce warming and inhibit hurricane formation.

More recently, scientists have investigated spraying fine seawater into low-lying stratocumulus clouds above the Great Barrier Reef to make them brighter and reflect more sunlight. The hope is that this will keep the water temperature low enough to prevent coral bleaching.

Scientists internationally have also been modelling a strategy to inject aerosols high into the stratosphere to replicate outcomes from the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption, in which reflective sulfuric acid droplets drew down average global temperatures by 0.5C.

A planet-sized sunshade?
Should we try and turn the stratosphere into a giant global sunshade to stop Earth from overheating?

Read more
But Andrew Lenton, an ocean carbon cycle modeler with the CSIRO, said geoengineering of this kind could have transnational consequences.

"You're changing the balance, changing precipitation, and there is some really, really significant side effects that can go here," he said.

Dr Lenton also pointed out that such techniques would not remove CO2 from the atmosphere, which in high levels reduced pH levels at the ocean's surface and created acidity.

"It might be like kids in a candy store with all these options available to us," he said.

"But when you start to dig a bit deeper, everything has risk or potential challenges associated with it."

Humanity's CO2 budget
The IPCC in 2018 warned humanity could only emit another 420 gigatonnes if it is to have a 66 per chance of limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius
Uncertainties exist due to transient climate responses to high emissions, such as changes in the Earth's radiation absorption, thawing permafrost and wetlands releasing methane
The IPCC added that 'all analysed pathways' included a degree of carbon dioxide removal to neutralise emissions from sources where no mitigation measures had been identified
Looking for ideas with multiple benefits
Professor Boyd said there was a preference internationally for techniques that had multiple benefits for the environment, along with those that did not step too far from the realms of financial reality.

"There has been so much sensationalism around this, with people talking about mirrors in space, or thousands of these bobbing pipes in the ocean," he said.

"It's become a little bit sci-fi.

"We really want to bring that back to earth by exploring work that involves environmental co-benefits."

Scientists have been studying the effects of acidification on reefs.(Supplied: Aaron Takeo Ninokawa)
This included the concept of "regenerative agriculture", which could see mined minerals with high CO2 absorption qualities worked into farmland as fertiliser.

"It comes at a low cost, you're sequestering carbon, you're fertilising, and you're also boosting the soil profile," Professor Boyd said.

"It might also be possible that you could further till that soil to build up its profile for biochar."

Biochar is a carbon-rich material like charcoal that is produced from biomass through slow pyrolysis rather than incineration, that is, heating in the absence of oxygen rather than burning.

Food and agricultural waste and even manure can be turned into biochar and added to soil, where it sequesters carbon and helps retain soil moisture and nutrients, subsequently bolstering crops when matched with the right varieties and conditions.

Biochar, such as this collection created from bamboo, can also help retain soil moisture.(ABC Sunshine Coast: Jacqueline Street)
Just 10 years to work it out
Trees also capture and store carbon dioxide — for as long as they stay alive, at least — and their planting in recent decades has been touted by commercial entities who claim to be carbon neutral as a result.

Dr Lenton cited a colleague who modelled growing trees on every available piece of land worldwide under high emission models.

"But she was not even able to get to a medium scenario [of global emissions] by basically removing all the agricultural land and turning that into forest," he said.

"The reality is, the scale is incredible, and there is competition for land.

"You can't turn all sub-Saharan Africa into a forest and think the people there are going to be happy with that."

Water availability could stymie plans to plant billions of trees to capture carbon.(ABC Rural: Kim Honan)
Research published earlier this year, however, estimated there was enough suitable unused land on Earth for re-forestration to store about 205 gigatonnes of carbon.

"We can't just look at these things in isolation," Dr Lenton said.

"We may potentially be able to plant a huge amount of forests but planting eucalyptus, for example, requires a huge amount of water."

He believes humanity has only 10 years to have large-scale carbon dioxide reduction schemes up and running.

These schemes would need to be making a significant dent in carbon dioxide levels, as by that point CO2 emissions will likely have reached the limit required to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

But that, Dr Lenton said, was the root problem — one that casts a shadow over everything scientists were potentially fast-tracking to draw carbon from the sky.

"If emissions are not going to be falling globally, is this something even worth doing?"

Want more science from across the ABC?


Connect with ABC News
ABC Help
© 2019 ABC
12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 9:51pm
During the Yonger Dryers episode within a couple decades the temperature shot down 10c and stayed that way for over a thousands years.   Then in a similarly short period of time the temp shot back up 10c.   Sea-levels whipsawed 100's of feet.   Some say there is even evidence for a 30ft 24hur world wide sea level rise (mind blown don't know if I could believe it). Nothing humans have done so far can compare to whatever caused this. Mother Nature will do what ever she well damn well pleases.   And you know what?   When she was done we where left with this unprecedentedly calm world that we now live in.
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2019 at 10:17pm
Most of the CO2 we produce is actually absorbed in "the system".   Only a tiny amount stays in the atmosphere.   So what that tells me... without us the world would be running a carbon deficit, and we could see a catastrophic CO2 free world (or at least dangerously low levels).

If I am doing my math right... we should only have to slow down a bit for Mother Nature to catch up to us.   She is an incredible carbon sink.   You guys were fussing about nitrogen earlier in the thread... but the other super important molecule for them is CO2.   
That is if our goal is to be CO2 nuetral... but I don't even know if that is what our goal should be.   CO2 is not pollution. It is plant food! However f you want to fight pollution I am all in!
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 28381
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 5:04am
12 Monkeys...............
1995 ‧ Science fiction film/Thriller ‧ 2h 11m a must for AFT
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 56070
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 7:24am
Fascinating (if terrifying) article, Carbon.

I love the new avatar DT!
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 8:16am
wow Carbon as far as I know of... that is the first evidence of impact in the southern hemisphere that I know of.

Unbelievably evidence suggests the earth was not just hit once by space rocks, but probably hit with a shot gun effect.   Perhaps not just once but twice... at the beginning and at the end of the Younger Dryes.

The most crazy to think about is the fact there is evidence for at least 6 civilization altering type impacts in the last few THOUSAND years.   Evidence suggests we have been hit at least 500 times in the last 10,000 years. Thankfully most have been closer to the Tunguska event or the the Chelyabinsk than the one that took out the dinosaurs.   Regardless the threat is real and we have seen it in historical times.

There is very little human history before 10,000 years ago.   Civilization didn't start as we know it till about 5,000-6,000 years ago.   These dates are not coincidences and relate strongly to what was discussed in the previous paragraph.
Back to Top
DeepThinker View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar

Joined: September 26 2015
Location: So. California
Status: Offline
Points: 2275
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeepThinker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 08 2019 at 9:04am
You want to hear something crazy? It is the second week of October and meteorological winter has already started! The Polar Vortex is already fully formed.   The Jet streams are blasting, and a big part of America will get snow this week. It may even go as far south as North Texas.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down