tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post5299080623082099408..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: The FutureMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-78556039007432142542010-11-10T10:40:28.853-08:002010-11-10T10:40:28.853-08:00cagw_s predictions, except for sea level, are not ...cagw_s predictions, except for sea level, are not too far off mine, but the spin is very wrong.<br /><br /><em>it would not surprise me if sea levels actually fall between now and 2030.</em> No. We can be very confident of a measurable increase. Will it be widely problematic by 2030? I think not yet, which is why I didn't mention it.<br /><br /><em>Carbon based fuel consumption will increase sharply between now and 2030, and will continue to increase rapidly unless a cheaper alternative becomes available. Roughly half of global electricity is produced by coal, and that isn't likely to change much.</em> That's what I said. I'd put about 75% confidence in this.<br /><br /><em>Droughts happened in the 1930's in the US, and probably were not caused by CO2. Likely they will happen again and will be attributed to CO2 by those who believe that CO2 is harmful.</em> Agree. But the attribution will be right, in some degree. Subtropical drought will substantially increase.<br /><br /><em>Fisheries will collapse or not based on global willingness to control commercial fishing fleets, without regard to CO2 and global temperatures.</em> Agree as to the first order cause, but ocean acidification and coral decline from rapid warming are already factors.<br /><br /><em>Heat events like France in 03 and Moscow this last summer were not attributable to CO2, have happened before, and likely will happen again.</em> Yes, but these events will become measurably more frequent by 2030. The Moscow event has no precedent.<br /><br /><em>...how so many seemingly well educated people could deceive themselves into believing that CO2 levels, whose effect is a decreasing log function</em> I think you misunderstand. It's logarithmic in the <b>total</b> CO2, not in the new CO2. The logarithmic aspect doesn't make much difference until the total exceeds the background, and it only helps very gradually. At 4x background, you only get 3x the background forcing from CO2. It doesn't help very much.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-22166002678936687202010-11-10T10:17:59.811-08:002010-11-10T10:17:59.811-08:00OK cagw_skeptic99, you are pushing a bunch of tire...OK cagw_skeptic99, you are pushing a bunch of tired and dubious pseudo-skeptical points, found all over the web, though seldom bothered with here. You appear to be predicting that temps and sea level will NOT rise over the next 2 or 3 decades.<br /><br />Let's find out if you really believe that stuff. How about a substantial (5-6 figures, and note I'm a regular ol' middle-class American, not Bill Gates) bet, the more public the better, under our real names. I have lots of ideas about the details if you are willing.<br /><br />PS I habitually make blog comments under my full name. Here you just see "Ric" derived in some way obscure to me from my signing in to my Google account, which knows my full name.<br /><br />-- Ric MerrittRichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00677573041684027902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-77526953068142210942010-11-10T07:04:22.430-08:002010-11-10T07:04:22.430-08:00adelady,
The European heatwave of 2003 caused man...adelady,<br /><br />The European heatwave of 2003 caused many excess deaths and was an extraordinary meteorological event, but it wasn't catastrophic on a global scale, and nor did it spur a sudden increase in mitigation efforts.<br /><br />BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56333122301634955782010-11-10T05:47:08.402-08:002010-11-10T05:47:08.402-08:00I'm not so sure, ourchangingclimate. Remember...I'm not so sure, ourchangingclimate. Remember Hansen's prediction that 2012 is likely to be a recordbreaking year. If that means another 2003 across Europe and anything like the worst we've had in Oz, we're staring down the barrel of some really nasty effects fairly soon.<br /><br />And a big el Nino will certainly push enough superwarm water from the Pacific through to wash away those stubborn remnants of Arctic summer ice.adeladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02019930864931919369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-31669739246022600042010-11-10T00:50:55.901-08:002010-11-10T00:50:55.901-08:00Lou,
Global SO2 emissions will not be drastially ...Lou,<br /><br />Global SO2 emissions will not be drastially reduced over the course of a decade. <br /><br />Though in Europe aerosol pollution is decreasing, over Asia it is still increasing while being more or less stabel over North America (according to Wang et al 2009 based on satellite derived aerosol optical depth)<br /><br />AR4 quotes a study as saying "The burdens of sulfate, nitrate, black carbon, and organic carbon are predicted respectively to be 0.32. 0.18, 0.01, 0.33 Tg in preindustrial time, 1.40, 0.48, 0.23, 1.60 Tg in present-day, and 1.37, 1.97, 0.54, 3.31 Tg in year 2100. " based on a model simulation (GISS II) based on SRES A2.<br /><br /><br />More broadly on the quesion of the future, I don't think terrible disasters are in the cards before 2030. It's a slow motion disaster if anything, and will therefore not be noticed as being a disaster. I'm not optimistic that we will have changed our trajectory noticeably by 2030. Climate will continue taking the backseat to the economy. Global tensions will increase partly due to regionally varying climate effects (by probably more so due to other geopolitical stresses such as declinging oil and (locally) fresh water reserves, increasing cultural tensions (e.g. the Islamic world versus the West). <br /><br />Partly as a result of these tensions, and partly because different coutnries have such different short term interests, the focus will be more on local adaptation (e.g. as a result of floods there will be a push for higher dikes) than on global mitigation.<br /><br />Which will make the climate situation deteriorate even more. Untill at some point, much later in this century, the climate effects become more and more widespread and problematic. Whether at that point it turns into a global disaster or strong global (meaning by everyone; not meaning necessarily by a global kind of government) action to fend off the worst is up to the future generations. <br /><br />BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-8072874227006439742010-11-09T20:01:28.493-08:002010-11-09T20:01:28.493-08:00cagw_skeptic99 --- You are wrong about temperature...<b>cagw_skeptic99</b> --- You are wrong about temperatures going up and down. Here is a simple zero demensional, zero reservoir study with an actual prediction:<br /><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/10/unforced-variations-3-2/comment-page-5/#comment-189329" rel="nofollow">Global Warming, Decade by Decade</a><br />Do attempt to understand it this time, wmar.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-65862110166349978522010-11-09T19:49:13.179-08:002010-11-09T19:49:13.179-08:00A quick link on effects on fire regimes in Oz:
Th...A quick link on effects on fire regimes in Oz:<br /><br />This by Williams et al for the CSIRO in 2009, abstract at: http://ecite.utas.edu.au/62117<br /><br />"<i>Examination of weather data from south-eastern Australia over the period 1973-2007 shows that fire danger (as measured by the annual sum of the commonly-used Forest Fire Danger Index) rose by 10-40% at many sites from 2001-2007 relative to 1980-2000... Climate change projections are for warming and drying over much of Australia, and hence an increased risk of severe fire weather, especially in south-eastern Australia. Modeling suggests an increase of 5 to 65 per cent in the incidence of extreme fire danger days by 2020 in this region... Simulation modeling of climate change impacts on fire regimes in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) predicted that a 2ºC increase in mean annual temperature would increase the landscape measure of fire intensity by 25%, increase the area burnt, and reduce intervals between fires...</i>"<br /><br />etc. etc.Ludditehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02535555707494541168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-70666517277290486212010-11-09T19:46:40.433-08:002010-11-09T19:46:40.433-08:00Temperatures have cycled up and down throughout th...Temperatures have cycled up and down throughout the period when we had thermometers to measure them, in roughly 30 year cycles. This continued during the last century without any obvious relationship to CO2 increase, and there is no real evidence that these cycles will not continue for the next century.<br /><br />Sea level increases and loss of island habitat have been repeatedly forecast for many years now. The rate of sea level rise has actually been decreasing for a few years, and it would not surprise me if sea levels actually fall between now and 2030.<br /><br />Carbon based fuel consumption will increase sharply between now and 2030, and will continue to increase rapidly unless a cheaper alternative becomes available. Roughly half of global electricity is produced by coal, and that isn't likely to change much.<br /><br />Droughts happened in the 1930's in the US, and probably were not caused by CO2. Likely they will happen again and will be attributed to CO2 by those who believe that CO2 is harmful.<br /><br />Fisheries will collapse or not based on global willingness to control commercial fishing fleets, without regard to CO2 and global temperatures.<br /><br />Heat events like France in 03 and Moscow this last summer were not attributable to CO2, have happened before, and likely will happen again.<br /><br />Natural variation in climate has been going on since the beginning of time and will continue long after the current fantasies about the importance of CO2 are only amusing footnotes in history books. The historical topic will be wondering how so many seemingly well educated people could deceive themselves into believing that CO2 levels, whose effect is a decreasing log function, have more than a minimal effect on climate when increasing from current levels.<br /><br />Cheers.cagw_skeptic99https://www.blogger.com/profile/01949769463315785456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-35503598786183365842010-11-09T19:27:38.944-08:002010-11-09T19:27:38.944-08:00We can hope that new solar-powered process removes...We can hope that <a href="http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=17198.php" rel="nofollow">new solar-powered process removes CO2 from the air and stores it as solid carbon</a> actually will scale up.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-32862971330541240172010-11-09T18:41:49.097-08:002010-11-09T18:41:49.097-08:00MT is both brave and annoyingly accurate, but let ...MT is both brave and annoyingly accurate, but let me chime in with a few tweaks.<br /><br />The water situation in the CO river basin will deteriorate considerably. It's perilously close to shutting down the Hoover turbines right now, and not far from reducing water flows to Las Vegas.<br /><br />Similarly, the problems of a couple of years ago with Atlanta and Lake Lanier will return with a vengeance, resulting in (again) thermo electric plants being shut down for weeks to months. (Already happened in 2007 and 2010.)<br /><br />In short, the energy-water nexus will kick in at a much higher level than we've seen to date.<br /><br />A sleeper issue is the successful global efforts to reduce SO2 emissions. China has been inconveniently cooperative in this respect, which will unleash a new level of forcing. (Check the IPCC graphs showing the effects of various anthro emissions; reducing sulfates dramatically over a decade, and they already peaked a few years ago, will subtract considerable cooling.)<br /><br />Big hunks of ice will fall off Antarctica and Greenland, and no one will give a flying fig.Lou Grinzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17928280655354890269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-84477548802621613112010-11-09T18:38:14.142-08:002010-11-09T18:38:14.142-08:00I'll buy Luddite's prediction. Adam's ...I'll buy Luddite's prediction. Adam's isn't even a stretch.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-88900599268709695512010-11-09T18:29:30.132-08:002010-11-09T18:29:30.132-08:00MT: "But let's take the lid off here. Any...MT: "But let's take the lid off here. Anybody else care to venture any guesses?"<br /><br />The sort of catastrophic totally out-of-control wildfires (bushfire Down Here) the US, southern Europe, Russia and Oz have seen recently will become much more common (if not commonplace). I'll dig up some references when I get a roun tuit, but some of the stuff fire ecology scientists from Oz, the US and elsewhere have written recently scares sevral types of crap out of me.Ludditehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02535555707494541168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-15908403171941821512010-11-09T16:31:28.432-08:002010-11-09T16:31:28.432-08:00Adam --- Already happened in France in the summer ...<b>Adam</b> --- Already happened in France in the summer of 2003 CE.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-84381965832099824712010-11-09T16:17:42.674-08:002010-11-09T16:17:42.674-08:00But let's take the lid off here. Anybody else ...<i>But let's take the lid off here. Anybody else care to venture any guesses?</i><br /><br />I'm guessing there's a disaster flick-worthy weather event in the cards between now and 2030. I'm betting on a mega-heat wave in northern Europe or a heavily populated part of the U. S., with a death toll in five figures.<br /><br />This will raise climate change awareness for a while, but not enough for serious action. While the dead are being buried and the editorials are being written, the mining of coal and tar sands will continue unabated.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13955691670049830140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-69985727061692273592010-11-09T11:52:00.953-08:002010-11-09T11:52:00.953-08:00OK, non-authoritative opinion here. Please don'...OK, non-authoritative opinion here. Please don't quote as "noted scientist says", OK? Strictly half-informed speculation follows.<br /><br />We are running out of liquid fuel, not out of carbon based fuel. <br /><br />If we take climate into account, the best solution is switching to an electric car infrastructure, and running the power on nuclear facilities, with a proper waste disposal process in place, supplemented wherever possible with renewables. (Air traffic would use biofuels.) If we axe nuclear, we need a huge push for solar thermal; countries which have a substantial highway dependency without access to a hot sunny desert would seem to be pretty much hosed. <br /><br />If we don't take climate into account, the best solution is new extraction from shales and tars plus coal-to-liquids. Normal market mechanisms will probably make this happen in a timely way. <br /><br />It is exactly this prospect that makes a price on carbon necessary very soon, to steer the market away from this disastrous choice.<br /><br />I don't doubt that there will be costs and stresses associated with the transition either way. Nor do I question the idea that the low carbon way is more difficult and expensive. <br /><br />The idea that we will be eating locally grown food or nothing because of a truck fuel shortage is <a href="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/03/energy-is-unbelievably-cheap.html" rel="nofollow">totally</a> unconvincing <a href="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/07/end-times-thinking-and-locavore-fallacy.html" rel="nofollow">to me</a>. <br /><br />Other interactions between agriculture and fossil fuels may well turn out to be very important, but the natural gas shortage that would drive it appears to be a ways off, again because we in Texas are happy to destroy our aquifers for your benefit.<br /><br />Some friends of mine just had a successful fracking operation come in on a ranch where they have some residual mineral rights. They are good decent educated people and the Democrats in the family will wring their hands a bit, but I promise they are happy about the royalties and will forego the water well.<br /><br />The operation is producing almost pure kerosene.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-55322560214114620512010-11-09T11:24:54.593-08:002010-11-09T11:24:54.593-08:00I would love you to give more support and detail f...I would love you to give more support and detail for #1, fossil fuel abundance. Quite apart from the wisdom of burning more, I have doubts about the possibility.<br /><br />Obviously, you can't use the last half decade of oil production to support predictions of thriving consumption. What will happen that hasn't so far?Richttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00677573041684027902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-57487493411910652132010-11-09T11:23:23.270-08:002010-11-09T11:23:23.270-08:00An interesting argument, Artifex, but more applica...An interesting argument, Artifex, but more applicable to Harvard and Yale than to the schools that house most of the work in meteorology and oceanography.<br /><br />Yes, a scientific career not caught up in all the complexity of university life is likely to be more productive. If you can't get a job at a national lab, shoot for the University of Chicago, where undergrads are as rare as hen's teeth. I don't think U of C is going anywhere, nor MIT, nor Stanford. Northwestern, although they keep foolishly asking me for money, can do just fine on its real estate portfolio and its endowment.<br /><br />But state universities (Illinois, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan, Florida State, TAMU, Oklahoma) of the sort that lead the charge in meteorology are threatened. Go down a notch to where a school can't afford a football presence, and I don't have any idea how they expect to stay in business.<br /><br />Similarly, something called the New York Times will persist. Not so sure about the Austin Statesman or the Wisconsin State Journal.<br /><br /><br />I would not be so sure aboutMichael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-54925807627469309442010-11-09T10:58:53.678-08:002010-11-09T10:58:53.678-08:00MT,
I would contest "the decline of the univ...MT,<br /><br />I would contest "the decline of the university". The same core values of the university are there and will probably continue to be there for some time to come. These core values are just mask to a certain extent by a very recent phenomena of everybody going to collage (or even high school). Will this continue ? Maybe not, but it is a very, very recent phenomena. Places will always exist that provide the type of education you describe, just not everybody will have access to them.<br /><br />I also think the effects of the university on culture are overstated. To make a quick point: Consider the last 50 physics Nobels awarded. How many of them were to university faculty ? Now consider your personal list of 50 most important novels of the 20th century or 50 most influential art objects. How many of those are the works of academics ? The objective math driven world of engineering and science has always been a fundamentally different creature than the humanities.<br /><br />I also think you are missing one of the understated points of a classical education. This to a large extent distinguished the children of privilege from their peers. (i.e. saying that you can't have the CEO job unless you have a specific education and know the right people causes less consternation than claiming you can't have the CEO job unless you are related to specific bloodlines). I don't see this dynamic going away anytime soon. In fact I see it becoming more intense as competition grows fiercer.Artifexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16967499277698758056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-74266540550743521782010-11-09T10:14:35.892-08:002010-11-09T10:14:35.892-08:00Byron, I did say much would be lost with the decli...Byron, I did say much would be lost with the decline of the university. <br /><br />(Almost every Northwestern graduate of my generation took English lit from Bergen Evans. It was a privilege even though it was a chore. I got a great deal out of several other liberal arts classes at NU. But in today's short attention span world I wonder if there is the patience to even deliver this kind of education, much less the interest in receiving it. Most of us also took intro to Astronomy with Alan Hynek, coiner of the pseudo-scientific expression "close encounters of the Nth kind"; even though nominally a science course it was much easier going. Hynek was more a creature of the modern university. Evans was a throwback.)<br /><br />Much has been lost with the decline of the newspaper as well. But some traditions eventually go away, the good with the bad.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-24254859765825013052010-11-09T10:12:06.993-08:002010-11-09T10:12:06.993-08:00What Artifex said: "Could you further explain...What Artifex said: "Could you further explain your reasoning behind #8 ? I can't follow your train of thought." Me too.<br /><br />On the ability of the US to perpetually frustrate rational carbon taxes:<br /><br />There are market mechanisms for forcing the US to have rational carbon taxes. All we need is a significant block of the global market, acting in self-interest, to raise the price of inputs to the US, and tax the outputs coming out of the US. Since it will be less efficient to tax indirectly, it will over-burden the US, and then it there will be a real benefit for the US just to document that rational carbon taxes were applied, and then rational carbon taxes become the cheapest route.<br /><br />At least 5 nations have nuclear sub fleets with intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and modern countermeasures from missile defense. These bring the pain directly to the decision makers, by destroying *everything* that is associated with their maintenance of quality of life, if not their life itself. No longer is the pain to be exclusive to the percentage of the population that would usually be volunteered into being cannon fodder. No amount of petulant exceptionism by the ruling elites can overcome having the most expensive real estate ignited into blobs of black glass.<br /><br />If I speak with uncharacteristic optimism, I would say that countries are not *actually* disregarding sound climate policy, although the vagaries of daily politics make it seem so. Already sound climate policy is influencing military defense decisions and very high level international treaties. What we are seeing are the "manufactured populism" that allows rational jockeying for economic position, before the sh*t hits the fan, and trillions of dollars worth of shipping infrastructure is damaged by rising sea levels and by more heat energy being available for extreme destructive weather events. That, and not drowning polar bears, is the price the people who count cannot dream to bare.<br /><br />The trillions of dollars worth of shipping infrastructure is exactly the thing worth protecting with extreme military measures. So a posture of damaging exceptionism can be compelled by others to be dropped.manuel moe ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04878149837118503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-7630754143889251112010-11-09T10:03:56.063-08:002010-11-09T10:03:56.063-08:00degrees that convey no useful skills or marketabil...<i>degrees that convey no useful skills or marketability</i><br />If this is intended as a comment on all degrees outside of "the hard sciences and engineering", then I fear you're simply revealing your prejudices here. I don't dispute the likely decline of the university, but valuable human knowledge goes well beyond this narrow field.<br /><br /><i>I'd say I'm about 80% sure it will happen in this century.</i><br />If we get to 2101 with more than six billion people still alive (6.6 billion -10%), we'll be doing remarkably well.byron smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17938334606675769903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-9914474596385492952010-11-09T09:55:13.033-08:002010-11-09T09:55:13.033-08:00betting on collapse is an odd but interesting idea...betting on collapse is an odd but interesting idea.<br /><br />Defining it roughly: a rapid increase in mortality globally. To be specific, say a 10% or larger decline in world population that is not driven by voluntary birth control. How this will end once it starts is anybody's guess but it won't be pretty.<br /><br />I'd say I'm about 80% sure it will happen in this century. This is much more pessimistic than I was ten years and a couple of months ago when it seemed likely that Mr. Gore would be president.<br /><br />I still think it is within human capacity to avoid the crunch, but honestly I am having a hard time envisioning the scenario at this point.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-8148168868234262632010-11-09T09:46:14.007-08:002010-11-09T09:46:14.007-08:00Just extrapolating trends on #8: faculty who don&#...Just extrapolating trends on #8: faculty who don't care about undergrads, undergrads who don't care about faculty, degrees that convey no useful skills or marketability, pointless attachment to the lecture format, emergence of niche education, less career attachment... Basically, the internet destroys the already archaic model of the liberal education.<br /><br />Much is lost as a side effect, but the point is, everything that was gained was a side effect in the first place.<br /><br />I could put the disappearance of newspapers in the same category. You can add that in.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-42277092248385602322010-11-09T09:32:10.486-08:002010-11-09T09:32:10.486-08:00Could you further explain your reasoning behind #8...Could you further explain your reasoning behind #8 ? I can't follow your train of thought.Artifexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16967499277698758056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-73606376130557554962010-11-09T09:09:51.664-08:002010-11-09T09:09:51.664-08:00Thanks for going out on a limb with predictions he...Thanks for going out on a limb with predictions here, and in many cases, I think yours are quite insightful. While in one sense you are "optimistic" about the "party" continuing more or less unchallenged (seriously) until 2030, in another sense, this makes you a deeper pessimist than others in the long term, since we have twenty more years of damage before we start decelerating.<br /><br />I assume your claim about alternative fossil fuels is intended to sidestep worries about peak oil? Do you think that the capacity exists to avoid the serious liquid shortfalls predicted by the Pentagon by 2014-15? These predictions include (as I understand it) non-conventional fuels.<br /><br />Also, no word on nuclear or CCS in your predictions? I predict they will each get plenty of money pumped into them (the former making any collapse far more dangerous).<br /><br />Another wildcard likely to come into play prior to 2030 is the global debt economy, which has already had one shock in the 2008-09 GFC, and which could well face more (of a similar scale or larger) within the next five years. A period of serious deflation (or perhaps hyperinflation, or deflation followed by hyperinflation) leading into a global greater depression could actually be something of a godsend for climate mitigation through an aggressive shutdown of industries (despite causing untold misery along the way). Yet such a scenario could make peak oil worse by removing incentives to invest in infrastructure.<br /><br />Another wildcard is the domestic response to this: <i>The relative position of the US with respect to the rest of the world will continue to decline slowly.</i> One can imagine the feeling of losing power, influence and security making certain very hawkish figures more attractive to large parts of the populace and increasing the chances of further military confrontations (vs Iran, or vs Russia or China through proxies). Once underway, such conflicts have significant unforeseen unforeseeable consequences that could lead geopolitics in numerous directions.<br /><br /><i>There will be no such thing as wild caught seafood.</i><br />By 2050, yes; by 2030, no.<br /><br /><i>Collapse may be abrupt, but probably can be put off a good while.</i><br />Good while = 2021? 2040? 2080? 2200? 3000?<br /><br />Personally, I don't think we can make it to 2050 without significant global disruption of the present political and social order (likely involving widespread violence).byron smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17938334606675769903noreply@blogger.com