PowerSwitch

Three years ago today I blogged, with evidence, about the 2008 CO2 emissions peak. How wrong I was:

http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2009/12/carbon ... dy-peaked/



Also see this great blog from Ugo Bardi:
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2012 ... oiler.html

And here's my updated blog, three years on:
http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2012/12/recognising-reality/

clv101 wrote:And here's my updated blog, three years on:
http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2012/12/recognising-reality/

I have a hunch that "peak emissions" will happen about the same time as "peak population." I expect there will not be a significant decline in greenhouse emissions until human economic activity is being forcibly reduced because dieoff has started.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

clv101 wrote:And here's my updated blog, three years on:
http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2012/12/recognising-reality/

I have a hunch that "peak emissions" will happen about the same time as "peak population." I expect there will not be a significant decline in greenhouse emissions until human economic activity is being forcibly reduced because dieoff has started.

Apparently there is evidence that emissions have risen regardless of a drop in economic activity, even with a dramatic industrial decline... feedback loops could already have instigated runaway.

peaceful_life wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

clv101 wrote:And here's my updated blog, three years on:
http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2012/12/recognising-reality/

I have a hunch that "peak emissions" will happen about the same time as "peak population." I expect there will not be a significant decline in greenhouse emissions until human economic activity is being forcibly reduced because dieoff has started.

Apparently there is evidence that emissions have risen regardless of a drop in economic activity, even with a dramatic industrial decline... feedback loops could already have instigated runaway.

They might have, but there is no reason to believe this is true. 55 million years ago there was a very fast (by geological standards, not by the standards we are now setting) release of carbon, accompanied by the highest temperatures on Earth since the extinction of the dinosaurs. This did not lead to a runaway greenhouse effect. It is highly probable that the feedback effects we have already set in motion are enough to set off the "methane burp" we presume to have caused that previous CO2 and thermal maximum. But it is also true industrialised civilisation could not survive this sort of rise in global temperature (a rise of between 6 and 10 degrees). It would be curtains for most of the human race.

There is one other factor I'm not taking into account, and that is that the sun is continually getting warmer. So maybe the difference in solar radiation between 55mya and today would be enough to set the runaway greenhouse going, but I think it is much more likely that the climate would eventually recover, just as it did 55mya. Even if some humans survived, there would by that time not much left in the way of recoverable fossil fuels.

Most of the new energy growth is in those economies which have subsidised energy prices -- e.g. China, India, Middle East. That can't continue because the expense for those countries who are primarily importers will curtail other aspects of government policy; rather like the effect of subsidising "the dole" in the Roman Empire.

In any case, much of the continued demand for energy is being financed by quantitative easing, the cash for which is ultimately recycled through the major resource/energy producing states. When QE stops because Europe/the USA can't get cash-rich producer nations to buy worthless bonds, then we might see things slacken, and ultimately fall as inflating debt is taken out of the global equilibrium.

Yeah, that's the only real hope. We (globally) won't be able to pay the marginal price for new fossil fuel production and ultimately it will fall, leaving much of today's reserves in the ground.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

peaceful_life wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote: I have a hunch that "peak emissions" will happen about the same time as "peak population." I expect there will not be a significant decline in greenhouse emissions until human economic activity is being forcibly reduced because dieoff has started.

Apparently there is evidence that emissions have risen regardless of a drop in economic activity, even with a dramatic industrial decline... feedback loops could already have instigated runaway.

They might have, but there is no reason to believe this is true. 55 million years ago there was a very fast (by geological standards, not by the standards we are now setting) release of carbon, accompanied by the highest temperatures on Earth since the extinction of the dinosaurs. This did not lead to a runaway greenhouse effect. It is highly probable that the feedback effects we have already set in motion are enough to set off the "methane burp" we presume to have caused that previous CO2 and thermal maximum. But it is also true industrialised civilisation could not survive this sort of rise in global temperature (a rise of between 6 and 10 degrees). It would be curtains for most of the human race.

There is one other factor I'm not taking into account, and that is that the sun is continually getting warmer. So maybe the difference in solar radiation between 55mya and today would be enough to set the runaway greenhouse going, but I think it is much more likely that the climate would eventually recover, just as it did 55mya. Even if some humans survived, there would by that time not much left in the way of recoverable fossil fuels.

I hope you're right UE.

We can only hope for an economic crash in which China is involved as well. A crash there would precipitate a revolution, or at least mass unrest, which would drop production figures and hence fuel consumption drastically. A crash in China would ripple out worldwide but would, ironically, make oil affordable again!

China has had quite a few crashes over the centuries, the worst ones being the collapse of the Yuan/Mongol (1350s) and Ming (1640s) dynasties. I wouldn't have liked to live through either period!

I only hope that f there's another one, firstly it's not too painful, and secondly that there remain enough natural resources (well, soil and water, trees etc) for people to live afterwards.