Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: Conrad on September 01, 2020, 06:14:52 AM
-
https://spaceweather.com/
On Sept. 1st, 1859, the most ferocious solar storm in recorded history engulfed our planet. It was "the Carrington Event," named after British scientist Richard Carrington, who witnessed the flare that started it. The storm rocked Earth's magnetic field, sparked auroras over Cuba, the Bahamas and Hawaii, set fire to telegraph stations, and wrote itself into history books as the Biggest. Solar. Storm. Ever.
But, sometimes, what you read in history books is wrong.
"The Carrington Event was not unique," says Hisashi Hayakawa of Japan's Nagoya University, whose recent study of solar storms has uncovered other events of comparable intensity. "While the Carrington Event has long been considered a once-in-a-century catastrophe, historical observations warn us that this may be something that occurs much more frequently."
To generations of space weather forecasters who learned in school that the Carrington Event was one of a kind, these are unsettling thoughts. Modern technology is far more vulnerable to solar storms than 19th-century telegraphs. Think about GPS, the internet, and transcontinental power grids that can carry geomagnetic storm surges from coast to coast in a matter of minutes. A modern-day Carrington Event could cause widespread power outages along with disruptions to navigation, air travel, banking, and all forms of digital communication.
Many previous studies of solar superstorms leaned heavily on Western Hemisphere accounts, omitting data from the Eastern Hemisphere. This skewed perceptions of the Carrington Event, highlighting its importance while causing other superstorms to be overlooked.
A good example is the great storm of mid-September 1770, when extremely bright red auroras blanketed Japan and parts of China. Captain Cook himself saw the display from near Timor Island, south of Indonesia. Hayakawa and colleagues recently found drawings of the instigating sunspot, and it is twice the size of the Carrington sunspot group. Paintings, dairy entries, and other newfound records, especially from China, depict some of the lowest-latitude auroras ever, spread over a period of 9 days.
"We conclude that the 1770 magnetic storm was comparable to the Carrington Event, at least in terms of auroral visibility," wrote Hayakawa and colleagues in a 2017 Astrophysical Journal Letter. Moreover, "the duration of the storm activity was much longer than usual."
Hayakawa's team has delved into the history of other storms as well, examining Japanese diaries, Chinese and Korean government records, archives of the Russian Central Observatory, and log-books from ships at sea--all helping to form a more complete picture of events.
They found that superstorms in February 1872 and May 1921 were also comparable to the Carrington Event, with similar magnetic amplitudes and widespread auroras. Two more storms are nipping at Carrington's heels: The Quebec Blackout of March 13, 1989, and an unnamed storm on Sept. 25, 1909, were only a factor of ~2 less intense. (Check Table 1 of Hayakawa et al's 2019 paper for details.)
"This is likely happening much more often than previously thought," says Hayakawa.
Are we overdue for another Carrington Event? Maybe. In fact, we might have just missed one.
In July 2012, NASA and European spacecraft watched an extreme solar storm erupt from the sun and narrowly miss Earth. "If it had hit, we would still be picking up the pieces," announced Daniel Baker of the University of Colorado at a NOAA Space Weather Workshop 2 years later. "It might have been stronger than the Carrington Event itself."
-
Can you imagine if something like this happened in our time?
-
Can you imagine if something like this happened in our time?
I imagine we wouldn't be having this conversation. ;D
-
Well, at least not without opening a window and using your outdoor voice.....
Brian
I imagine we wouldn't be having this conversation. ;D
-
From what I heard from the shoe shine guy, the sun isn't producing many sun spots or having flares. It's in a cool down period.
-
What????? No more global warming?
-
You know, that's exactly what I was thinking. How will this affect Global Warming? Unfortunately it could go way worse than Global Warming and cool us down into the next ice age.. I don't like the cold at all.
-
I'm no astronomer (well I guess I'm an amateur astronomer since I look up now and then ), but isn't "heating up" and "cooling off" only the terms used to describe sun storm activity and not really the amount of heat radiating from the sun?...and if so wouldn't that mean if the sun storm activity was cooling down and that also means fewer sun spots doesn't that mean that we would receive slightly more radiant heat from the sun because there are fewer or no sunspots to block the heat leaving Global Warming alive and well...and...and.. if so doesn't that mean to imply anything else is not only un-American but almost treasonous? Well I for one am not gonna sit here and...
OOPs lost my head...sorry, for a minute there I was in the student council trial scene of Animal House. ::)
-
Sunspots increase the energy reaching the earths surface.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html)
As for a CME like Carrington, if a big one happens today, many systems will get knocked out but probably not the "major disaster" like some are predicting. Many of our power systems and other infrastructure are protected to one degree or another and direct effects on personal electronics devices are minimal.
Global warming is a fact. Global average temperatures are rising.
Whether man-made activities are a major or minor part of it is still being debated but there is no doubt that it is a part of it.
-
Whose fact and why should i accept it? Because a bunch of political 'scientists' got together and cried "EUREKA...we have consensus!"...now send us your tax money so we can live comfortably ever after? Enjoy your hoax.
-
Here we go again.
Stupidity reigns in this country. Scientists know nothing and they all have a political agendas because they're all out to 'get us'. Scientists just want to seed discord because? Well, that's what they do.
While we enjoy this hoax there's another hoax to enjoy as well. The pandemic. Oh wait, that's going to disappear like magic when the warm weather gets here, right? Oh wait, it is warm out. Maybe it's not warm enough? Maybe global warming will save the day after all?
-
For every 'fact' from one side there is a counter 'fact' from another. Who gets to decide 'My scientists can whup your scientists'. It would seem that there is enough stupidity to go around. Thanks for sharing.
-
Sunspots increase the energy reaching the earths surface.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html)
Intuitively one may assume the that total solar irradiance would decrease as the number of (optically dark) sunspots increased. However direct satellite measurements of irradiance have shown just the opposite to be the case. This means that more sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise.
Thanks Boomer!
You too Mr. C.
Pinkie?...well thanks for shedding light from the QAnon side of the Sun.
-
And they're off! Gary gets off to an early start using the ole' 'It is all a hoax' theory, while Conrad takes the inside track via the ever- popular 'See how foolish that other argument is?' retort. Gary seems a bit winded and temporizes with the ancient but always effective 'Oh yeah, oh yeah?' comeback. I think he wants to take a breather without giving up his position.
We've got a pressure cooker going here folks and one can only imagine how long it will take us (them) to get to the REAL truth rather than that pesky 'fakey' truth.
The InterWebs have not seen this kind of close, precise banter since ole' Cap'n Bob and I debated KiPass. Of course that was different 'cause obviously Bob was wrong and one of youse guize is right..... probably. :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Brian (who really knows what is going on but does not want to spread it all around)
P.S. I am starting to wonder about the whole Carrington event thingy, maybe that is not real. Then again, how do we really know there is a sun out there to generate these supposed sunspots, hmmmm? Hmmmmmmmm?
Whose fact and why should i accept it? Because a bunch of political 'scientists' got together and cried "EUREKA...we have consensus!"...now send us your tax money so we can live comfortably ever after? Enjoy your hoax.
Here we go again.
Stupidity reigns in this country. Scientists know nothing and they all have a political agendas because they're all out to 'get us'. Scientists just want to seed discord because? Well, that's what they do.
While we enjoy this hoax there's another hoax to enjoy as well. The pandemic. Oh wait, that's going to disappear like magic when the warm weather gets here, right? Oh wait, it is warm out. Maybe it's not warm enough? Maybe global warming will save the day after all?
For every 'fact' from one side there is a counter 'fact' from another. Who gets to decide 'My scientists can whup your scientists'. It would seem that there is enough stupidity to go around. Thanks for sharing.
-
:rotflmao:
-
Global warming is a fact. Global average temperatures are rising.
Whether man-made activities are a major or minor part of it is still being debated but there is no doubt that it is a part of it.
Not to get into an argument on whether global warming is real or not but...last thing I saw was that the warming effect was because the scientists left out the ground sensor data for Siberia ( nice cold place). The satellite imagery was supposed to be the end-all in calculating global temps but when the temps didn't show what they wanted, they went back to ground based readings and then fudged the numbers. Why would they do this? I don't know, but yes money is involved as in prosperous nations would give money to poor nations to upgrade their infrastructure. That's one side of it anyway.
At any rate, the last time I heard an actual check on temperature averages it seemed like it as up 1/2 degree. That puts it well within the margin of error for any climate change study out there. For my sake and that of others can you list a source that states the fact that the temperature is rising on planet Earth? Just an FYI, if you ask me do I think the climate is changing the answer is yes. But then millions of years ago the equator was somewhere in Kentucky. So it is constantly changing. And I'm a skeptic that man is causing, or could reverse any changes. I just want to read where you're getting your data and mull it over for a while.
-
Thanks Boomer!
You too Mr. C.
Pinkie?...well thanks for shedding light from the QAnon side of the Sun.
what's qanon?
-
For every 'fact' from one side there is a counter 'fact' from another. Who gets to decide 'My scientists can whup your scientists'. It would seem that there is enough stupidity to go around. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for proving my point G!
Hey, what side are you on anyways?
-
And they're off! Gary gets off to an early start using the ole' 'It is all a hoax' theory, while Conrad takes the inside track via the ever- popular 'See how foolish that other argument is?' retort. Gary seems a bit winded and temporizes with the ancient but always effective 'Oh yeah, oh yeah?' comeback. I think he wants to take a breather without giving up his position.
We've got a pressure cooker going here folks and one can only imagine how long it will take us (them) to get to the REAL truth rather than that pesky 'fakey' truth.
The InterWebs have not seen this kind of close, precise banter since ole' Cap'n Bob and I debated KiPass. Of course that was different 'cause obviously Bob was wrong and one of youse guize is right..... probably. :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Brian (who really knows what is going on but does not want to spread it all around)
P.S. I am starting to wonder about the whole Carrington event thingy, maybe that is not real. Then again, how do we really know there is a sun out there to generate these supposed sunspots, hmmmm? Hmmmmmmmm?
:rotflmao:
-
Did you ever go to see a Glacier when you were younger?
Go visit that Glacier now. Is it the same? bigger? or has it shrunk?
The only Glaciers that have managed to maintain their size are those on the north sides of mountains or those substantially shielded from sunlight.
This Glacial shrinkage is repeated all over the planet and to my knowledge nowhere are any Glaciers increasing.
There are many other directly measured effects that point to substantial, rapid climate change.
If you choose to not believe the specialists on these issues, who do you believe?
Politicians? Newspapers? That well presented article on Facebook? Anyone who panders to your personal viewpoint?
I personally am a specialist on a particular piece of Cancer Treatment Management software?
Would I listen to someone who doesn't even work in Cancer care when they comment on the software I work with?
No, they have no idea what they are talking about. They may well have an opinion but they have zero knowledge of the software or the field.
If they are someone who works in Cancer care, then I'll listen, but they are still not a specialist in the software I work with and they are probably not knowledgeable in how that software works, but they do have a somewhat valid viewpoint, so I will listen.
Most of the people who work for my company have less knowledge of the software than I do, but again they probably have a valid viewpoint, so I listen.
A very small number of people know more about the software than I do, and those I listen to attentively and I believe what they tell me.
However, even they are not perfect or infallible, but that doesn't mean that I should ignore them.
Most scientists do not have an axe to grind. Yes, they may well promote their work in the hopes of getting funded, but their colleagues are far nastier towards them than anyone in the general public, and that's a good thing. There are thousands of experienced, qualified people out there desperately trying to disprove their published theories. The process is called Peer Review and as a balance to the excesses of some scientists it works well. If they publish bullcrap, somebody is going to prove them wrong because that leads to more available funding for them. Remember Cold Fusion? That was published before it could be Peer Reviewed and as a consequence made the publishers of it into a scientific laughing stock.
The problem today is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can invent some load of bullcrap and publish it and there are plenty of people out there who will believe and promote/propagate it. It's still bullcrap, but it is popular bullcrap.
As for reality,.... none of you really exist at all and I am having this discussion with myself,... which makes me bipolar,.... where are my pills? :rotflmao:
-
Did you ever go to see a Glacier when you were younger?
Go visit that Glacier now. Is it the same? bigger? or has it shrunk?
The only Glaciers that have managed to maintain their size are those on the north sides of mountains or those substantially shielded from sunlight.
This Glacial shrinkage is repeated all over the planet and to my knowledge nowhere are any Glaciers increasing.
There are many other directly measured effects that point to substantial, rapid climate change.
If you choose to not believe the specialists on these issues, who do you believe?
Politicians? Newspapers? That well presented article on Facebook? Anyone who panders to your personal viewpoint?
I personally am a specialist on a particular piece of Cancer Treatment Management software?
Would I listen to someone who doesn't even work in Cancer care when they comment on the software I work with?
No, they have no idea what they are talking about. They may well have an opinion but they have zero knowledge of the software or the field.
If they are someone who works in Cancer care, then I'll listen, but they are still not a specialist in the software I work with and they are probably not knowledgeable in how that software works, but they do have a somewhat valid viewpoint, so I will listen.
Most of the people who work for my company have less knowledge of the software than I do, but again they probably have a valid viewpoint, so I listen.
A very small number of people know more about the software than I do, and those I listen to attentively and I believe what they tell me.
However, even they are not perfect or infallible, but that doesn't mean that I should ignore them.
Most scientists do not have an axe to grind. Yes, they may well promote their work in the hopes of getting funded, but their colleagues are far nastier towards them than anyone in the general public, and that's a good thing. There are thousands of experienced, qualified people out there desperately trying to disprove their published theories. The process is called Peer Review and as a balance to the excesses of some scientists it works well. If they publish bullcrap, somebody is going to prove them wrong because that leads to more available funding for them. Remember Cold Fusion? That was published before it could be Peer Reviewed and as a consequence made the publishers of it into a scientific laughing stock.
The problem today is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can invent some load of bullcrap and publish it and there are plenty of people out there who will believe and promote/propagate it. It's still bullcrap, but it is popular bullcrap.
As for reality,.... none of you really exist at all and I am having this discussion with myself,... which makes me bipolar,.... where are my pills? :rotflmao:
I'm fairly certain that I know the answer to your question, I bolded that answer above. Of course, GP will say something different, but from my observations I'm certain that I know his true answer.
-
And that right there is the root cause of a lot of problems and misery. It has been said that the Internet gives everyone a voice.... but only after we see the results is it obvious that not everyone SHOULD have a voice. Or more correctly, be listened to with the belief that what he / she is saying has any validity at all.
I do not know how it is where you are but here, the issue of global warming is split down party lines. I find this the most amazing thing of all because there is not the slimmest, faintest reason why a physical characteristic and whether or not it exists, and if so what might be causing it should be in any way related to politics or a political party. ?? Really, this is truly incredible, at least to me.
And to add insult to injury, there is the 'like' button which directly rewards people for saying what others want to hear rather than the truth. In fact, lay people can get further pandering to the crowd than professionals can with a lot of work and study. Pretty soon I think Boeing and Scarebus will be building planes based on five year olds drawings because most people find them cute and ignoring both structural and aerodynamic experts.
But I suspect the cork is out of the bottle and there is no fixing this now. Too many people are easily influenced and led, and far too many people would rather clutch onto existing ideas than form their own for independent thinking to win out. And given there is a working platform where all can feed as much as they want (or need?) there really is not any likely way to turn back the clock.
Brian
<snip>
The problem today is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can invent some load of bullcrap and publish it and there are plenty of people out there who will believe and promote/propagate it. It's still bullcrap, but it is popular bullcrap.
As for reality,.... none of you really exist at all and I am having this discussion with myself,... which makes me bipolar,.... where are my pills? :rotflmao:
-
Must I remind you nitwits of the rules of engagement? Don't make me stop this car and focus, especially whilst drinking my whiskey on vacation.
-
Must I remind you nitwits of the rules of engagement? Don't make me stop this car and focus, especially whilst drinking my whiskey on vacation.
Are you texting while driving? >:(
-
Maybe, yeah. ?? What nitwits, and what rules have been violated? Happy to comply but not able to follow your complaint.
My post was aimed at the idiocy of humanity, not any individual or group on this forum. The political reference was just that- I did not call anything good nor bad, merely pointed out that I find the association of any scientific findings or observations getting swayed or dedicated by any political party the ultimate folly (i.e., I am a ----- party member so I hate -----, or I love -----).
Unless of course you meant someone else?
Brian
Must I remind you nitwits of the rules of engagement? Don't make me stop this car and focus, especially whilst drinking my whiskey on vacation.
-
Maybe, yeah. ?? What nitwits, and what rules have been violated? Happy to comply but not able to follow your complaint.
I'm thinking he had to set down his drink and pull over to the side of the road to delete someone's post (with a virtual sword) that broke the rules.
Then took a quick downer and poured another one and took off shooting road shoulder gravel out the rear and shaking his head. Due to the drinking
and the fact that he is apparently on vacation it's doubtful that we'll ever really know what was deleted. But the deleted post author knows and that's probably all
V'Jim cares about....'unless he spilled some of his drink during all that then...someone might be banned..of course I'm just speculatin' here 'cause there's Covid
and stuff and I've got nothing better to do right now. ::) :(
-
but here, the issue of global warming is split down party lines. I find this the most amazing thing of all because there is not the slimmest, faintest reason why a physical characteristic and whether or not it exists, and if so what might be causing it should be in any way related to politics or a political party. ?? Really, this is truly incredible, at least to me.
There is a full spectrum from those who don't think the climate is changing at all to those who think the world is ending in 5 years. From those who believe man has nothing to do with it to those who think man is 100% responsible. And everything in between. Personally, I believe that the climate is changing and also believe that man has contributed to the matter. How much of a problem the climate change is or is not and how much man has contributed to it is a good debate, one that has been at matter for quite a while now; and it is certain to continue. As a scientist at heart, I welcome and enjoy sensible, non-emotional, fact-based discussion and debate. That is how we learn and grow.
But what makes it so political is what to DO about it. That is where it potentially starts getting scary. One extreme would like the government to ban everything it thinks might be "bad", ruin the economy, lower standards of living, and block any talk to the contrary. The other extreme would like to do nothing at all, or even expand doing activity supposedly causes the issues, while defunding any study of the issues.
Personally, I believe the mostly "natural" progress of technology improvement, combined with the economics of scarcity will take care of the majority of the problem. Plus, reducing & changing the supposed main contributors of warming- energy use, method, and production, have other known good aspects that make them attractive, regardless of where one falls on the spectrum (reduction of pollution, comfort, reliability, energy independence, reduction of nation conflict, better power distribution options, more comfort, etc). Markets and consumers have, will, and will likely continue to respond in ways mostly positive to the situation. I am always encouraged by trying to see win-win situations.
So, where is the electric Concours with 0-60 in 2sec, 300 mile range, 10 minute recharge, and $15K price tag? I want it now :)
-
I respectfully disagree- I think people at least a lot of people though certainly not all, are taking their 'belief' from a political structure. That is what gets the whole ball rolling for confrontation as well as probable poor response, if any response is needed. Making 'decisions' based on any party line is a bad idea at best and disastrous for the entire society at worst, and we seem to be leaning toward the latter unfortunately.
As to that electric Concours you mention, I can tell you exactly where it is...... in the future :-)
Brian
<snip>
But what makes it so political is what to DO about it. That is where it potentially starts getting scary. One extreme would like the government to ban everything it thinks might be "bad", ruin the economy, lower standards of living, and block any talk to the contrary. The other extreme would like to do nothing at all, or even expand doing activity supposedly causes the issues, while defunding any study of the issues.
<snip>
So, where is the electric Concours with 0-60 in 2sec, 300 mile range, 10 minute recharge, and $15K price tag? I want it now :)
-
Nothing has been deleted. However I detected ripples in the force positively trending negative as I sip my beer in Fayetteville. Consider it a mild warning.
-
Personally, I believe the mostly "natural" progress of technology improvement, combined with the economics of scarcity will take care of the majority of the problem. Plus, reducing & changing the supposed main contributors of warming- energy use, method, and production, have other known good aspects that make them attractive, regardless of where one falls on the spectrum (reduction of pollution, comfort, reliability, energy independence, reduction of nation conflict, better power distribution options, more comfort, etc). Markets and consumers have, will, and will likely continue to respond in ways mostly positive to the situation. I am always encouraged by trying to see win-win situations.
I hope you are right max', but to me it's the same solution whether one expects technology to fix it or some deity on high, wishful thinking. Although your explanation is more thought out than most, people just aren't that bright and don't enjoy thinking much. They want easy answers like "God will take care of it" or "Technology will provide the answer" then we move on to the answer is "Solar" or the answer is "windpower" and then when you dig deeper you find that each "green" solution has it's own environmental handicaps. Of course there are now just those that want to call it fake facts or fake news and there really is no problem to be solved. Personally I doubt there will be a solution other than an eventual large reduction in population brought about by conditions unable to sustain as much life as we currently have on earth. One of the problems is that the environmentalists started pushing this global warming angle (I'm not saying they were incorrect, just perhaps the wrong tactic to get the message across) instead of just pointing out that putting known poisons into our oceans and fresh water supplies and putting other poisons and known carcinogens into our atmosphere is not going to be sustainable. "Mother Earth" nor "God" is going to magically/mirically make that stuff go away. Once they jumped on the global warming train they were countered with the "it's a natural cycle the earth goes through" (partially true? perhaps) and by others that think global warming might be a good thing and it is worthy of the loss of Polar bears and rising sea levels and thoughts that the permafrost melting won't cause as much of a problem as the scientists say it will.
In summation, I think it can be debated and researched on and on, but I doubt any solution will be found that we will voluntarily implement, the solution/consequences will be forced upon our descendant's descendants after we are all gone.
And thus ends my doom and gloom for this month. Let's all go for a ride....socially distanced of course. 8)
-
I respectfully disagree- I think people at least a lot of people though certainly not all, are taking their 'belief' from a political structure. That is what gets the whole ball rolling for confrontation as well as probable poor response, if any response is needed. Making 'decisions' based on any party line is a bad idea at best and disastrous for the entire society at worst, and we seem to be leaning toward the latter unfortunately.
And yet I don't disagree with anything you just wrote, nor do I believe what I wrote in opposition to it. I know that most people don't think things through; they are busy, disinterested, or don't have the resources to explore what are, admittedly, very complex issues. Many others just defer to those they trust. Apparently like you, I don't really follow any party dogma on any topic, I try to decide for myself where I stand, or delay the conclusion until I have more information. Then I move in the direction of my conclusions, while still being open to changing my mind.
But it is the "what to do about it" that leads to actual action. And it is action that gets most people up in arms (even when the action is justified). Theoretical debate is all wonderful- it can be ignored or embraced. But, inevitably it leads to calls for change, usually through government force.... and that engages the most politics.
As to that electric Concours you mention, I can tell you exactly where it is...... in the future :-)
Well, I hope to see it before I can't ride anymore.
-
I hope you are right max', but to me it's the same solution whether one expects technology to fix it or some deity on high, wishful thinking. Although your explanation is more thought out than most, people just aren't that bright and don't enjoy thinking much. They want easy answers like "God will take care of it" or "Technology will provide the answer" then we move on to the answer is "Solar" or the answer is "windpower" and then when you dig deeper you find that each "green" solution has it's own environmental handicaps.
Indeed. I could go into many hours of listing positives and negatives for every one of the proposed "solutions." The reality is that there is no one problem and no one solution. Technology is people solving problems through invention and the scientific method, and I do put a great deal of faith in those. Not religious-type faith, but knowing that humans (for all their numerous faults and issues) are pretty damn good at solving problems.... even the ones we make for ourselves (which are numerous).
Of course there are now just those that want to call it fake facts or fake news and there really is no problem to be solved.
Yep, and I don't like that either. But it is rare to find any discussion or "news" that isn't distorted or biased in some way. The trick is knowing that and moving forward, regardless.
Personally I doubt there will be a solution other than an eventual large reduction in population brought about by conditions unable to sustain as much life as we currently have on earth.
Yep, that is the ultimate "solution" to all our problems. If we mess things up enough, nature has a way of forcing her own corrections. We just have to hope we don't get to those positions.
In summation, I think it can be debated and researched on and on, but I doubt any solution will be found that we will voluntarily implement, the solution/consequences will be forced upon our descendant's descendants after we are all gone.
Well we already do that now with debt, loss of freedom, population, etc. It is pretty amazing we still live in the most prosperous time, ever. But as resources become more scarce, prices rise, standards of living go down, and change will be made mostly "automatically." The most successful changes seem to be those that are gradual and voluntary.