Suppose we get AGW under control

[Travis]

Suppose we get our act together and get a handle of Anthropogenic Global Warming. We make changes in technology, get carbon sequestering online and get some carbon sinks going and so, in say a century or so, things stabilize. Then a massive mantle plume under Africa breaks through the surface and we get a massive flood basalt eruption. A type of eruption that humanity has never dealt with. Billions of tons of carbon is going up into the atmosphere and Global Warming is now a threat again.

What do we do?

Do we nothing because this is natural? If we do nothing then what will we need to do to live with it?

Do we try to mitigate it? If so how would we?

Or do we just abandon Earth and colonize Mars?:D

[L The Detective]

I think the answer to your question is obvious. We ask the one man who's been anticipating this situation for years: Roland Emmerich. He'd know what do do.

[geni]

Suppose we get our act together and get a handle of Anthropogenic Global Warming. We make changes in technology, get carbon sequestering online and get some carbon sinks going and so, in say a century or so, things stabilize. Then a massive mantle plume under Africa breaks through the surface and we get a massive flood basalt eruption. A type of eruption that humanity has never dealt with. Billions of tons of carbon is going up into the atmosphere and Global Warming is now a threat again.

What do we do?

Do we nothing because this is natural? If we do nothing then what will we need to do to live with it?

Do we try to mitigate it? If so how would we?


In the short term we don't since the dust from the volcano would cause global cooling. One that is gone it's a case of looking at carbon sinks and throwing sulfur high into the atmosphere (you'd trash the ozone layer in the process but thats life).

[Soapy Sam]

Oh we will all go together when we go,
All suffused in an incandescent glow...

[mhaze]

In your scenario, is the billions of tons of CO2 that go up all or part of the CO2 that man foolishly sequestered on the ocean floor?

[CapelDodger]

Oh we will all go together when we go,
All suffused in an incandescent glow...

There'll be an end to all misery,
When the world is our rotissery ...

[CapelDodger]

Suppose we get our act together and get a handle of Anthropogenic Global Warming. We make changes in technology, get carbon sequestering online and get some carbon sinks going and so, in say a century or so, things stabilize. Then a massive mantle plume under Africa breaks through the surface and we get a massive flood basalt eruption. A type of eruption that humanity has never dealt with. Billions of tons of carbon is going up into the atmosphere and Global Warming is now a threat again.

What do we do?

Firstly, get out of the way of the basalt-flow (if that's an option).

Do we nothing because this is natural? If we do nothing then what will we need to do to live with it?

Do we try to mitigate it? If so how would we?

Or do we just abandon Earth and colonize Mars?:D

If we're going to live under domes or underground we might as well build them here. At least we're well-adjusted to the gravity and have an ozone-shield.

An artificial environment is ultimately energy-dependent, and we'd have no shortage of geothermal energy available. So I guess that's what we'd do. We have the technology already, after all.

[CapelDodger]

In your scenario, is the billions of tons of CO2 that go up all or part of the CO2 that man foolishly sequestered on the ocean floor?

What part of "mantle plume under Africa" did you not understand?

On second thoughts, don't answer that.

[Beerina]

Suppose we get AGW under control


Then we'll just have GW, and get there anyway.

Or we'll reverse it, triggering an ice age that actually will kill billions, and in a couple of years, unlike AGW, which will kill nobody.

[Travis]

In your scenario, is the billions of tons of CO2 that go up all or part of the CO2 that man foolishly sequestered on the ocean floor?Only if the sequesstered CO2 is subducted under Africa and when I said in the future I wasn't talking about that far into the future.

By then the Morlocks will be our main concern.

Firstly, get out of the way of the basalt-flow (if that's an option).

:D

If we're going to live under domes or underground we might as well build them here. At least we're well-adjusted to the gravity and have an ozone-shield.

An artificial environment is ultimately energy-dependent, and we'd have no shortage of geothermal energy available. So I guess that's what we'd do. We have the technology already, after all.

That would probably require a severe reduction in population, wouldn't it?

Suppose we get AGW under control

Then we'll just have GW, and get there anyway.

Or we'll reverse it, triggering an ice age that actually will kill billions, and in a couple of years, unlike AGW, which will kill nobody.

Dealing with natural GW was what I was wondering about. I'm curious if people would approach it differently, politically, if that was the case.

[CapelDodger]

That would probably require a severe reduction in population, wouldn't it?

I would think so, yes. Unless we'd already had a severe reduction.

Dealing with natural GW was what I was wondering about. I'm curious if people would approach it differently, politically, if that was the case.

A sudden dramatic event (such as a mega-eruption) would certainly have a more galvanising effect than AGW, which creeps up fairly imperceptibly. Since it would be on a scale beyond denial and mitigation I guess we'd go straight to coping-strategies. Diplomats could still argue the toss about those indefinitely, of course, so a co-ordinated response would be unlikely without an established World Government. So I guess we'd see national or regional policies established fairly quickly.

As a paid-up cynic I'd expect an "Every Nation For Itself" type of response. And someone, somewhere would blame the Jews. Beyond that I won't speculate :).

[Travis]

It might seem cynical but I agree. We might be better off with one government in that type of scenario.

[CapelDodger]

It might seem cynical but I agree. We might be better off with one government in that type of scenario.

And the war to establish it might well get the "severe reduction in population" thing out of the way.

[casebro]

So far, we haven't done anything to get "AGW" under control.

My biggest fear is that we do do something, no matter how minor, just as the natural peak abates. Then, many of use will yell:
"We're fixing it! Keep restricting our lifestyles! Pass MORE laws!". Commonality will not be causality, but the masses won't see that. Hey, only 35% of them believe in the theory of evolution. That's the scariest part of the AGW debate.