Are you ready for 2012?

2012 will just be another year. We will have some technical issues with solar activity, but that's it. There's no 'exo-planet', there is no disaster that will befall us. Doomsayers are not new. For centuries those endowed with more ego than the usual man have proclaimed upcoming disaster and peril. I just wish they would fix their pathetic lives instead of wishing the world to end. But you can't convince some. Iv'e had that many arguments with people spawning psuedo-science Iv'e given up. Here's the deal, let's talk about it in 2012. It will be interesting to hear the excuses and the new prophecies.

While all the wild predictions may be fantasy, there are enough potential changes happening in the world we need to take into account. The middle east is a time bomb that will go off at some point. Think gas is high now... China is expanding its military rapidly, why? The dollar is going to collapse in the near future. Eternal growth economies don't work. Resources are running out. Shortages of food and water are becoming a problem. The seismic activity in Japan is something never seen before. Politics of the left and right may result in violence. And that's just a start. Who needs to worry about solar flares, mystery planets and all that. We have enough REAL things to worry about.

True, just like any period in mankind's history. The seismic activity we have seen in Japan and New Zealand et al, is actually cyclic. It occurs every 15 000 years. We are more aware of political tension(resulting in higher fuel prices,the amassing of military) because of simple globalization. Technology has kept everyone in the loop. And as for the lack of food and water, we can blame human greed for that. Not anything new. The economy is always variable. It might be bad in the U.S right now, but in Australia it's brilliant. As it is in China. But things change all the time and it's just silly to blame it on some impending disaster.
But I totally agree R.J, we sound be worrying about the above issues instead of some Harry Potter science.

This is not about what is going to occur on 12.21.2012. It is about what will happen in the 100 years that follow.

"Limits to Growth"' came out in 1972. In one of my classes, "Current Events in a Historical Perspective", we covered this pretty well. The Club of Rome utilized experts in all fields of knowledge and a stone age computer to project current trends and how society will be impacted.In the chart below, the actual 1970-2000 values were plotted and they are staying fairly close to the original projections. The decline in non-renewable resources, such as oil and various ores that mined, will start limiting everything else and begin the decline.

Around 2015-2020 the fall of civilization begins to directly affect the public and they will finally realize that something is up and it is not good. My feelings are that the population decline will be much greater than what is projected.
Economies will become more localized, as less is transported long distances due to rising fuel costs or lack of fuel. For most of the world, many will die from lack of clean water.

12.21.2012 is supposed to be the beginning of a new era, one that is more spiritual and less materialistic.
Does this go along with that idea?

The recent study, completed on behalf of The Club of Rome, an organization which issued it’s own findings on ‘peak everything’ back in the 1970′s in a controversial environmental report dubbed The Limits to Growth (video), takes into account the relations between various global developments and produces computer simulations for alternative scenarios.

Link:

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...e-and-precipitous-population-decline_04052012

What scares me far more than a 2012 apocalypse are these Groups of "intellectuals", usually from the far left in society, that presume they are the be-all-end-all and have some innate right to decide for the rest of us what IS BEST for us and then seek to impose their decision on the rest of us, usually to "their own profit". The fault in these studies is they are always based on the decline of non-renewable resources. Recent discoveries are tending toward evidence that the so-called non-renewable resources are in fact renewing from previously unknown sources and processes. This then removes the main premis the studys are based on making them invalid.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/economy/peak_oil_index.htm

Rosco..Jones, we seem to agree on many subjects here but in this we may separate a bit.
As a biologist, by study and devotion, I know that any population that out grows its resources will naturally decline and when resources increase they will again increase in number. It's a natural balance. I would like to think that humans have the capacity to adjust, as a people, not because one group or another imposes restrictions on us. There doesn't have to be a fall of civilization. There only needs to be an adjustment of priorities.

Or more concisely, evolution.

Peregrini, Thanks for the heads up on the oil reserves situation. The infowars.com article was interesting. It did get me to check out other sources on the web. If true, the energy portion of the calculations need to be updated. New data always requires a rethink on the subject, eh? One factor here is, how much new oil is there? I am pretty sure it is not limitless. Oh yeah, what does this mean as far as green energy research and that Global Warming thing? The rate of usage increases with the population.

Oil/Energy is not the only concern. There are many other non-renewable resources that actually are non-renewable. The chart below is from," Mineral Supply and Demand into the 21st Century" by Stephen E. Kesler. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2007/1294/reports/paper9.pdf

Figure 7. Graph showing ratios of global reserves to annual global production (consumption) for most mineral and energy commodities for 1992; the ratios provide a rough indication of the adequacy (in years) of currently known global reserves (from Kesler, 1994).



Basically, this shows when we are expected to run out of these various minerals/resources.
This is not a temporary decline in resources that will recover, gone is gone.

Water may be a renewable resource, but in the Midwest they are pumping well water for irrigation faster than it can be replenished. The wells keep going deeper, but eventually they will reach the bottom. Water in the Colorado river is being fought over by all the municipalities along it's course. Communities are expanding and require more water. The amount of snowfall in the Rockies has been declining. This equals less water to be shared downstream. Las Vegas, along with LA, gets its water from Lake Mead. This is an extremely large fresh water lake. Since I moved from there in '97, the water level has fallen over 100 feet. It is still falling every year since. When the water goes, Vegas goes. Yes, water is a renewable resource, but changing weather and our demands may mean that, at some point, there is not enough to go around.

In this paper there was some interesting comments on population.
"Population will have a bigger effect on future mineral demand than the creation of new products and markets. Projections of future population range widely, depending on estimated fertility rates. For low fertility rates of 1.5 to 1.6 children per female, which are below the “replacement rate” of 2.1, world population is projected to increase from about 6 billion to about 7 billion people and then to decline after that, reaching the 1950s level of 2.5 billion in about 2150. If, on the other hand, global fertility rates remain at 2.5 to 2.6, world population will reach about 25 billion in 2150. For 2050, these two extremes would yield world populations of 7 billion or 11."

"any population that out grows its resources will naturally decline and when resources increase they will again increase in number. It's a natural balance."
This must be referring to renewable resources, since "non-renewable" would not magically increase. The biggest concern with renewable resources still has to be fresh water. We continue to use our fresh water faster than it gets renewed. I know we have some common and divergent views. That's what life is all about. Life's different experiences create a unique perspective for each of us.

Trends and forecasts are based upon things going as expected. This is not how things always work out. Some world changes can be drastic and happen in a relatively short amount of time from the whims of weather both solar and terrestrial or other natural events. Say we get hit by a big coronal mass ejection (long-shot), that wipes out all electronic devices world wide. We may have resources then, but would be unable to do much with them. The oceans' circulatory system may stop working, due to all the glacial ice melt messing with the near ice thermal exchange. (medium-shot) This would cause major changes in global weather and renewable resources. As far as us really forecasting the future, it is all just a best guess, no matter who does the talking.

I think you guys are taking the hypothetical a little too far. Either you fear the future or have a lot of free time to study negative contingencies. As an engineer one thing I'm sure of; mankind will adapt. " “Beware of complexity disguised as a solution.” Thomas Frey. "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Da Vinci. There are solutions to EVERY perceived catastrophe that may befall humankind, the problem as I see it is it's implementation, or lack thereof, due to man's own narcissistic and nefarious tendencies.

To say nothing of the inland hurricanes AKA derichos.... All the damn earthquakes... the east coast was not always seismically active.

Greenland lost its ice sheet recently in the span of four days.

AND THE TILT OF THE MOTHER LOVING EARTH!!!

YOu all know the earths tilts has changed due to major quakes according to the mainstream news media.

Ah yes 2012... magic hour.

TIme for all of us to entertain our worst fears and best plans. Just a few more months now.

What I find amusing about the whole 'end times' hippy science thing is that it's so eclectic. Let's take a few quakes, add some natural disasters, and throw in some global warming(and don't research it enough to realise it's cyclic) for good measure and.. hey, we have the end of the world. I don't mean to be offensive but they really should do something constructive with they're lives instead of wishing the world to end. Call me old fashioned but I believe in science, so I'm sure this thread will be vacant after 2013 rolls around, because all the doomsayers will be concocting their next fantastic prophecy. See you in 2013 for your excuses.

Global warming and cooling is cyclical but we cannot accurately predict the effects of a man made warming of the globe. You can argue all you want about it being a natural cycle but the fact remains that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is a direct result of human interaction. Increased CO2 is causing warming of the planet, acidification of the seas and all things associated with this carbon increase.

There is no indication that the CO2 increase will stop or even slow anytime soon.

In this case this "cycle" may not end until the human population is "balanced". Those who refute global warming as actually happening refute science and those who study it.

Will man kind survive? Yes, but at what cost?

I respect your opinion, and this is what this site is for. Discussion. But really? Scientists, the non-politically aligned type, gather their data via the Troposphere, where the data is reliable and not a reflection of the 'Urban Island' effect. Which coincidentally, is also the area where first signs of anything are detected. In the last 25 years there has been no sign of any warming. And these satellite stations are accurate to 0.01%. The 'Oregon Petition' has 17000 Scientists who have signed and risked their reputations on the fact that human release of Carbon Dioxide, or any other gas, does not, will not, and can not cause any said catastrophe enabling change in global climate. Any projection of climate change is based on computer projection. They can't even sort an algorithm to predict natural disasters or predict the stock market, and we're supposed to put our faith in that?

Most of us live in the "urban island" this of concern to the human population more than the troposphere. So we are causing a warming of our living areas. Is that not alarming? Is that not a huge issue that needs to be addressed?

We are rebounding from the ice age and this cycle of heating is normal but should we exasperate it more? Balance is key in the natural world. If we are now pumping x times more CO2 into the atmosphere than our world (trees, oceans etc.) can utilize we are tipping the scale per say. There are consequences for our actions. Our children and grand children will pay for our mistakes and wonder why we didn't have the strength or foresight to make changes.

The acidification of the seas is preventing calcium dependent sea life from growing. If the worlds coral reefs are destroyed fishing is destroyed. The effects of CO2 in water drastically lowers the PH. Any shell producing animal cannot build their shells in these conditions.

I understand the issue with the urban islands. I agree that if 75% of the data comes from urban areas it could skew the data and misrepresent the actual increase in temperature for the earth as a whole. The flip side of that is you need to look at where the biggest changes are coming from, the so called hot spots, in order to catch it before it is in fact a global rate of change.

I will agree that the data may not be as bad as is often portrayed but, and it is a big but, our ever increasing emissions are effecting the rate of temperature increase world wide.

Octavusprime;
Just a small correction.

That is not exactly correct. I am not faulting you but your source.
It's hard to do scientific notation so I hope this still makes sense.
Carbon dioxide dissolves in water and dissociates 'reversibly' to H2CO3, carbonic acid.
CO2 + H2O = H2CO3
H2CO3 is diprotic, that means it has two acid dissociation constants.
The first one for the dissociation into the bicarbonate ion HCO3-... H2CO3 = HCO3- + H+ : Ka1 = 2.5×10-4 ; pKa1 = 3.6 at 25 C
The second for the dissociation into the carbonate ion CO3 2-... HCO3- = CO3 2- + H+ : Ka2 = 4.69×10-11 ; pKa2 = 10.329 at 25 C
A simple quick analysis of how much of something dissociates is how large the negative notation is or the larger the pKa number. A larger negative notation or larger pKa means LESS dissolution.
The Kh, hydration constant,(at 25 C) of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] = 1.70×10-3: This means the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid. It remains as CO2 molecules disolved in the water but not by a chemical reaction and not affecting the pH. H2CO3 is an amphoteric substance and can act as an acid or base, oddly enough, depending on pH of the solution. The oceans are mildly alkaline. A typical pH = 8.2 to 8.5, sea water contains about 120 ppm of bicarbonate ion.
So, the concentrations of H2CO3, and the ions HCO3-, bicarbonate, and CO3 2-, carbonate, depend on the pH of the solution they are dissociated in. Also the presence of "other" ions in the Ocean act as a buffer further reducing the action of CO2, not to mention, increased temperature (Global Warming) reduces the amount of CO2 'uptake' by the ocean.
In short, anthropogenic CO2 has very little (almost zero) to do with Ocean pH. There are far too many other sources to blame it on humans.

If you want to know more about atmospheric CO2 and the Oceans you can look here;
http://ocean.mit.edu/~mick/Papers/McKinleyetalGBC2004.pdf

Wow that was a difficult read. I forgot how bland scientific journals can be. I don't think that journal really applies to this discussion directly.

Your knowledge of the mechanisms of acidification are sound. Been awhile since I thought of such things in detail. You are correct that there are significant amounts of bicarbonate to buffer the acidification but at the levels now and predicted in the atmosphere there will still be changes to ph although minor in scale they have huge impacts on natural systems. I think the issue has less to do with PH but more to do with diminished levels of carbonate available for shell creation (calcium carbonate).

There are so many factors involved with Ocean pH, carbonate availability for coral or other shell forming animals, atmospheric CO2 levels, Ocean temperatures, etc. etc. It takes several graduate level courses to begin to understand them all. I was only trying to present a simple discussion of it to show it isn't just "man-made" CO2 involved. The action of CO2, bicarbonate, carbonate, calcium carbonate, calcium hydroxide, etc all play a part and the coral "need" CO2. Increased and decreased growth of coral reefs has been ongoing for hundreds of millions of years. Long before man showed up. While we don't harvest much ( I think Japan might still) calcium carbonate from live coral, the "huggers" would go berserk, no one even thinks about what we dig from the earth. That was once "living coral" and other calciferous organisms. It's just a matter of how you look at it.

I can agree with some of that.

The increases in population will only mean more cars, more cattle, more gases and chemicals being pumped into the air. Where does it go? What does this increase do to micro and macro climates and ecosystems. I get the whole "this shit happens and earth keeps spinning" view but I don't agree with it.

The biggest issue is people don't want to change their lifestyles. They don't want to think about the terrible things that this life of ours inflicts on the world around us. No one is willing to inconvenience their lives to make a single ounce of effort towards the obvious.

Hugger I am, hear me RAWR!

Thats exactly it Octa, no one is willing to change the way they live or what they do even if they are aware of it they choose to ignore it. Or society for the most part is garbage : /