I noticed that, they are talking about all the water on the planet boiling off into space.
I didn’t mean to be that alarmist.

What I was thinking of by runaway is when the tipping points and feedback loops become triggered and fall like dominoes. Releasing, (or stop removing) greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which dwarfs the amount we have been releasing by burning fossil fuels. Once that point is reached life will become very tumultuous and difficult.

I don’t think we can know what that means. But what we do know is sea level will rise more rapidly to a maximum of over 90 metres. Ocean ecosystems will collapse, most land ecosystems will be under extreme stress, many will collapse. Growing enough food to feed the population will become impossible. And this will last, or get worse for thousands of years.

This video is out of date. The climate has got worse, the political situation has also got worse. Extinction rebellion has failed. Emissions are still increasing.

During the European dark ages, there were times when monasteries were like fortresses, protecting the last vestiges of civilization Europe had left. If you wanted to see a library, they only existed in the monasteries.

I'm guessing it will be that way for a while. Who knows what will follow from there. Something really cool probably.

Yes, that sounds about right. I was thinking of three fortresses. North America, Europe and the region of China. The rest of the world would be cut loose.

Hopefully nuclear bombs won’t be thrown into the mix.

I think Washington and Moscow could possibly be gone in a couple of centuries from nuclear war. We won't be around to see it tho.

Fingers crossed they won’t.
I see Russia as a failed state now. I expect it would be Washington versus Beijing. In which case I don’t see it happening.

see Russia as a failed state now — Punshhh

But hasn't it been failing off and on for like 800 years?

I expect it would be Washington versus Beijing. In which case I don’t see it happening. — Punshhh

That would be cool if they avoided war and just had the occasional cold war.

But hasn't it been failing off and on for like 800 years? — frank

:up:

Russia is invincible and will never fall out.

Russia is invincible and will never fall out. — javi2541997

I agree. A million years from now the surface of the earth will be covered in a swirling mist that is basically Russia waiting for some aliens to visit so it can morph itself into their form and confuse the hell out of everybody.

Changes from 1884 to 2022 in global temperatures from cooler than average to hotter.(Supplied: NASA Scientific Visualization Studio)

People who are opposed to fossil fuels, are against a cheap, reliable, and powerful source of energy. If you take away fossil fuels it will hurt everyone economically, and essentially decrease everyone's quality of life. — Kasperanza

You're right, but only if fossil fuels were banned overnight. The best perspective is to consider projections based on the current status quo.
(See: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49876). Energy use is projected to grow substantially, and most of that growth in demand will be met with non-fossil fuels. Meanwhile, there will continue to be modest growth in the consumption of fossil fuels. Policy change could reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, without eliminating it, by increasing use of renewables. This would be gradual, and not have the negative impacts you suggest. There would be a gradual shift in workforce from the fossil fuel industry to renewable energy jobs, and at no time would there be a sudden change that displaces workers or causes energy cost to jump up.

You're right, but only if fossil fuels were banned overnight. — Relativist

This would be gradual, and not have the negative impacts you suggest. — Relativist

Please stop making posts that are reasonable and based on common sense. Somebody might believe you. :grin:

:cool:

Conspiracy theory anyone?

https://www.channel4.com/news/undercover-filming-highlights-saudi-plan-to-artificially-raise-oil-demand#

Why did they write in the article about 'artificially' raising oil demand?

What's artificial in that you promote what your country can provide?

Anyway, with the current prices I'm sure that they have to promote oil products. Having seen over 100 dollar per barrel prices and having now well over 50 dollar prices make alternative energy sources quite competitive (this year Brent prices have been over 70 dollars, now it's 80 dollars).

Why did they write in the article about 'artificially' raising oil demand? — ssu

Probably because they're a bunch of conspiracy theorists a doom merchants. Unless the policy was a secret one that directly contradicted their public commitments on climate or something complicated like that.

https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false