Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Klogg said:

There's also no certainty on how increased CO2 is treated by the earth. Is there a self reinforcing loop as some suggest (CO2 from ice is released, compounding the problem), or does the increased greenery offset and in fact make it harder for ever increasing amounts of CO2?

Click to expand...

It would if only we weren't chopping down the forests of Borneo and the Amazon.

orr said:

Unfortunately not to you son.
As the better part of a decade of attempted reasoning on several threads here is proof.

Click to expand...

Zzzz...zzzz...zzzz
Ad hom

Well my point here is that the physics is not simple. It is extraordinarily complex and chaotic.

Quick question for Bas and cie
When co2 was hundreds of time higher, before it got captured into coal and petrol by a green forest covering earth, why was not earth boiling?
And what make you think today that increasing co2 level a fraction of these ancient level would render the earth inhabitable?
This is basic question based on recognised data you can find anywhere.
During that time we slaughter other species and breed like rabbits
We need to put our priorities rights especially when we as the west can do zip about global emissions levels even if we reverted to total suicide..
Ok our decomposing bodies could still be blamed..
And how many kids will you lead to suicide with your fake gloom? Cause some kids will be intelligent enough to look at the facts about co2 and its unstoppable increasing levels

@qldfrog , the anxiety this alarmism is producing is real. As I detailed here, I personally know of one suicide and one deep depression in adolescents. I think it's pathological and criminal tbh.

qldfrog said:

your fake gloom

Click to expand...

At about 300m years ago , Co2 was about 10 times higher and temp about 10 deg higher.
Good for coal but not gloomy fakers.

wayneL said:

Well my point here is that the physics is not simple. It is extraordinarily complex and chaotic.

Click to expand...

The earth receives energy.
The earth loses energy.
We know how much is being received.
We know how much is being released.
It's called an energy balance model.
We know what causes changes.
The variability of climate is a different matter.
You have confused confused concepts.

rederob said:

The earth receives energy.
The earth loses energy.
We know how much is being received.
We know how much is being released.
It's called an energy balance model.
We know what causes changes.
The variability of climate is a different matter.
You have confused confused concepts.

Click to expand...

I'm not a physicist, but I have called client and friend who is... Works with a UK government agency working on the storage of sloar energy conundrum and is associated with several other scientists involved in the relevant fields.

He would be amused at such a simplification and even more amused by the reliance on any current deterministic model .

FWIW

wayneL said:

Could you explain these basic physics please.

Click to expand...

The "answer" = your leaning ability - ideological dogma............

"Most studies show the oxygen percentage relatively low in the Triassic 250m years, but increasing at the end of that period and remaining relatively high until about 40 million years ago, when it started to decline until it hit today's 21%. During the Jurassic and Cretaceous period oxygen levels fluctuated fairly rapidly from between 21% and 30%, as evidenced by wide-spread fires in the rock record.. At 30% O2, even wet plants will burn."_ posted in Quora.

This may explain how dinosaurs got big and how we will become pygmies.

wayneL said:

He would be amused at such a simplification and even more amused by the reliance on any current deterministic model.

Click to expand...

You don't get much right - climate models are stochastic.

quoted from wikipedia origin:There is evidence for high CO
2 concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago of over 3,000 ppm, and between 600 and 400 million years ago of over 6,000 ppm.PCC: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
not an oil lobby is it
current concentration:416ppm so 15 times lower...nothing more to say
and I quote same source:About 34 million years ago, the time of the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO
2 was about 760 ppm, so around twice as high as now...
as Pauline would say please explain, maybe just maybe there is another reason for global warming ...but who cares, the hysterics do not really want a cause of GW, they want a cause.

A couple of things I've heard today which seem relevant to this topic:

Regarding the protests, I didn't hear the entire broadcast but I did hear a few calls to some radio program whilst in a shop. They were people who'd been to the protests today and the radio hosts asked them all the same question as to what their primary concern is. What I found interesting is that not one of them said climate change, they all said some other environmental issue.

That's a small sample size obviously but I do find it interesting that someone goes to a climate change protest and when asked what they're concerned about, they didn't say climate change.

Now I've marched through the streets on occasion in the past yes and suffice to say that if someone had asked me what my concerns were, the answer most certainly would have related directly to the subject of the protest.

The other one came up in a face to face discussion. Basically an observation that a feature of current Australian society is a significant portion of the population, perhaps even the majority, has lost confidence in a fairly broad group which could be termed as "past leaders". Politicians and indeed government itself, academics, anything relating to banking and finance, public utilities or their privately owned successors, the church and so on. Basically anything that was reasonably respected throughout the 20th century is by many viewed with suspicion or even outright disdain today.

It's an interesting concept and I think it does have relevance to this and many other subjects including the difficulties faced by certain listed companies in regaining public trust and business.

That issues such as climate change and the intertwined subject of energy are seemingly unfixable via the political process makes far more sense if you first accept that confidence has been lost in government as such. Not specifically a loss of confidence in the Prime Minister personally or even the present Australian Government but a loss of confidence in the entire notion that government, any government, is really of much help in resolving any actual problem.

It's not just climate of course. House prices are another one, utilities are another, then there's schools and hospitals and all sorts of other things. The masses feel dudded by those in charge who seem incapable of implementing even the basic solutions to improve such things and are thus resistant to further change of anything. A number of "let them eat cake" sort of comments from those in past or present leadership roles adds to this line of thinking.

My thinking is thus that the way to fix climate change might also be the same way to fix rather a lot of other things. Fix leadership itself and that naturally fixes the rest, climate included.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/li...ng-people-are-feeling-it-20190918-p52soj.html
killing our youth for dogma now!

Knobby22 said:

It would if only we weren't chopping down the forests of Borneo and the Amazon.

Click to expand...

That's partly my point. Even after accounting for rainforests getting chopped down, we have more greenery now than before.

er.. is that "more regrowth in cut forests than was calculated"? The net loss of trees exists.

bi-polar said:

er.. is that "more regrowth in cut forests than was calculated"? The net loss of trees exists.

Click to expand...

http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/humans-are-officially-greening-the-earth-is-that-a-good-thing/

From the article:

Looking at remote sensing data from NASA’s satellites, we’ve discovered that over the last two decades, the Earth has increased its green leaf area by a total of 5 percent, which is roughly five and a half million square kilometers—an increase equivalent to the size of the entire Amazon rain forest.


Basically, NASAs own data says there's more greenery now than 20 years ago. AFTER accounting for everything we cut down. So the net loss of trees actually does not exist.

And I'm only going on science. No denial, just facts that I can point to.

rederob said:

You don't get much right - climate models are stochastic.

Click to expand...

Not in the minds of alarmists.

And they are still hopelessly wrong.

IFocus said:

The "answer" = your leaning ability - ideological dogma............

Click to expand...

Thanks for stating, in code, that you don't know.

Klogg said:

No denial, just facts that I can point to.

Click to expand...

Klogg please read your article.