If you like implausible optimism.
Some people are. And even from the OP:
Of course, I may be reading too much into those dire predictions.
As to “can recommend” (spelled right this time 
) I was mostly referring to his explanation of the climate / geophysical ructions, and about the reactionary efforts by the elite to keep the capitalist status quo going. That part at least gives a decent roadmap for how the Earth might start trying to buck us off, and how our actual society will react pretty much from end to end, north to south, and rich to poor.
Yo’re totally right that the part about humanity growing up is utterly implausible. But it highlights just how far away from that ideal we IRL humans really are. It’s a different, and more subtle, way of showing us our real selves; unflattering though that is. As I said.
I think this is part of the disconnect people have. Based on their claims for annual removal at this plant, we’d need ~40 million of them to deal with our annual emissions. And we’d need to build them all in time to make a difference.
Scalability and cost are incredibly difficult hurdles to overcome for carbon capture.
Apologies, I should have clarified better. I was referring to our current economic/political structures. Society. Civilization. However you want to call it.
How long do we have with our current way of life before the accumulated costs and stresses of climate change makes that no longer possible and we are forced into a cruder more survival oriented existence.
The possibility of human extinction is probably non-zero, but even as pessimistic as I am, I don’t consider it remotely likely. Others are of course free to disagree.
Well, not quite, most of the “wrong” predictions were made by mainstream media exaggerations, not climate scientists. This is really a big thing to take into account. Because thanks to those exaggerations then the right-wing media made super-mountains out of micro mole hills.
Also, this particular technology is sourcing carbon from the ocean, not from the air, so while it theoretically might reduce ocean acidification if operated at sufficient scale, it wouldn’t have a direct effect on global warming. Furthermore, the ocean’s capacity to continue absorbing CO2 is being diminished by rising sea surface temperatures, so even if CO2 saturation levels were somewhat reduced, the ocean’s utility as a carbon sink would still be impaired. A study recently concluded that 10% less CO2 was absorbed by the oceans in 2023 than in prior years.
who thinks this? I am honestly asking, don’t see this anywhere.
I am so glad someone, finally, started a serious thread on this subject - it’s a huge issue and yet it doesn’t seem to be on most people’s minds whatsoever.
For those of you trying to learn and keep up, what/who do you listen to?
I love Dr. Swain on the Weather West Youtube channel and also listen to Paul Beckwith, Climate Emergency Forum, and sometimes Climate Chat.
did I get back to edit in time? forgot one of my favorites: American Resiliency go there if you want to find out very good information about where you live and how to survive living in the times of change.
Now I’ve missed the edit window. I came back to say, I’ve only been really learning about this in the last year or so but things have changed so rapidly, a lot of information and opinion from not that long ago is out of date.
If you want to hear about how everything ties together: climate change, AI, peak oil, politics, all of it, the YouTube channel you want is Nate Hagens/The Great Simplification.
Well, it’s not meant to absorb all our annual emissions. We need to keep reducing those.
This tech is scalable. And this is a pilot plant, albeit their third one and much bigger than the others. But they expect production plants to remove tens of thousands of tons annually, which is a lot more than this plant. But yes, they’ll still need many thousand plants to make a significant dent in the total CO2.
If they reduce the CO2 enough in the ocean, more atmospheric CO2 will dissolve in the water, which will then be removed by this process. Atmospheric and oceanic CO2 are not independent; if one gets reduced, some will move from the other.
It’s an objective truth that a country may be insolvent.
Whether a country has collapsed is a matter of opinion.
I would more say that the sacrifices needed to reasonably address climate change are a lot less than those if we do not. I can’t quantify that.
In terms of existential risk, food is ultimately a bigger concern than natural disasters.
Most of earth’s agricultural land is used to feed animals whose flesh or byproducts we eat. If you want to keep it that way – and only about 1 percent of us today avoid animal food products – support addressing climate change. Otherwise, a very large percent of us will have to become involuntarily vegan to afford our dinners. But with that, there could theoretically be a tremendous decline in agricultural land without mass starvation. I’m not recommending it, just saying that the kids are not fated to die.
Climate numbers are impossible to reliably predict. Just the way it is. Truth is, we might get lucky. Maybe there will be some agricultural breakthrough in arid farming. Maybe lots of still productive farmland, needed to replace unusable land, will be opened up by banning biofuels. Politically impossible now, because we are not yet sufficiently stressed.
It is hard to say what messaging is correct today. I believe concern without panic makes the most sense, but cannot prove this. Air pollution, which once was a big killer, was largely addressed, even at the cost of more expensive cars. Good does happen.
I liked both the contents and tone of this book:
His content as a meteorologist who is edging into climatology is excellent. His videos about the current, unprecedented and record smashing heat wave out west over the past couple weeks are well worth a watch for anyone even remotely interested in meteorological phenomena.
That’s the real tragedy of the situation. We have however many millions of years of evolution built to react to immediate threats, not vague and diffuse (but ultimately lethal) future harms. But quite simply, by the time we’re actually stressed, it’ll be too late to do anything meaningful about it but triage.
It’s a problem that requires collective, proactive solutions and we’re incapable of it. With musings such as these, I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that I focus on “how much time we have left”.
I’m 72 comments in; has anyone defined exactly what societal collapse is, or how we can claim our guess was correct.
Without a clearly understood definition, we can claim it already happened because of some event….or we can claim it never will happen because of some tenacious group of humans still has a society.
Without such definition any guess is meaningless and can be claimed as accurate after the fact is like what fans of Nostradamus do
Mostly, because nobody will be in a position to say otherwise if society has collapsed. At that point debates with probably-dead people on the no-longer-existent internet will be moot.
Your answer implies your definition includes the cessation of the internet. I’m sure other people’s definition is something different…..which is my point.
If your definition of societal collapse is complete cessation of the internet and not replacement with something ‘better’ and going back to pre internet communications, my prediction is 100’s of years from now.
I don’t see how anything deserving the term “societal collapse” would leave an intact internet behind.
My point is that other people define societal collapse as something that might not be so dramatic as the loss of internet, or internet like communication.
Others may think it is flooding of florida, but the internet is still intact. Still others might define it as a third global war, but the internet is still intact.
I have a friend who sold his 150 year family farm as soon as he inherited it because Iowa was going to be a desert ‘in a few years.’ This was 10 years ago and he regrets it now because his prediction didn’t happen.
I find it hard to believe that climate change will destroy the internet. But if you have a good link on that, please provide it.
I googled to find something arguing it and this is as close as I could get
However, my link isn’t anywhere close to saying the internet is going. All it is saying is that climate change, if not averted, will cause expensive but obviously fixable damage at some point between 2033 and, if I correctly interpret the less than 50 year estimate, 2067. And the problem will only be big in low-lying areas like NYC. This is a problem. This is not the end of the internet.
The part of this that’s a matter of opinion is whether scare tactics work. My view is no.
Looking back at my post, I was addressing use of productive farmland for biofuel. The U.S. is the number one producer there. I do not see how using the corn to feed people rather than refineries would be too late at any realistic point. It would have been cheaper to world society to do it sooner (mostly because of rain forest clearance to grow displaced food crops), but a big increase in available calories for people to eat would take a year.
I am for addressing climate sooner than later. I am not for catastrophizing.
That’s unlikely to work because by the time they could possibly do that, warmer oceans will have overtaken any benefit from reduced CO2. The oceans have already warmed so much that in the past couple of decades, around 42% of sea level rise was due to thermal expansion.