Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
Yes I have, and how much are you doing to mitigate you carbon footprint?
You and everyone else has been heard for the millionth time and I for one have done as much as possible to reduce my carbon footprint, but it does become nauseous hearing it endlessly on here.
Is there any wonder it is driving Joe up the wall.
You mentioned to VC you would love to get an electric car, but can't afford one. Go and get a job at Bunnings and buy one, maybe put solar on your roof and get a battery to charge the car as well. Just to endlessly go on and on about climate change and post up news articles about it, seems absolutely pointless, if people want a sermon they will go to church.
Click to expand...

Actually I do a lot both personally and in the community on this topic. But I'm not going to beat that drum here because, frankly, there are plenty of other people who are making the noise about their contribution to reducing global warming.

Unfortunately everything I or you or Wayne or Smurf or anyone else does individually will make an infinitesimal difference to what is required. In an ideal world a huge number of people drastically reducing their carbon footprint would make a difference. But overall we still have to have a radical change in direction in our society/economic direction/national priorities if we are going to decarbonize our economy at the rate required to avert runaway global warming.

To get that (magical ) outcome somehow enough people have to convince the government and the rest of the community that this is not a drill.

In my view ASF is a sort of litmus test of our community. I appreciate it is a more conservative group of people mainly with money or trying to make it whose general political bent will be Liberal/Republician/Tory. But I'd like to think that anyone and everyone can look at overwhelming evidence, can appreciate risk management, might be able to recognise poor arguments and downright lies and realise this global warming stuff is serious and deadly.

But it's not happening is it ? No matter how hot it gets, how out of kilter our climate becomes, or how many measurements are made which show the path to peridition the eyes stay closed, the mind is set.

Greta Thunberg has emerged as teenager who reads the science and understands exactly what it means. She distills the hundreds of pages of reports into simple clarity - radical change now or we are all dead.

Her last speech to the UN was a bit blunter though wasn't it ? I think that is what has gotten under peoples skin. She is saying to our current leaders and senior citizens , on behalf of a few billion younger people " This is your absolute last chance. Recognise the problem, bite the bullet and do whatever it takes to pull our collective future out of the fire"

Because folks if you don't we will not forget you , we will not forgive you. You will be blamed for the disasters your denial and inaction has caused. There will be consequences for you. Count on it.

Strong stuff SP. Of course if all the science is hopelessly and utterly wrong there is nothing to worry about is there.
 
Smurf1976 said:
The temperature of the earth is ultimately a temperature above absolute zero.

Remove all energy input and that's where it would eventually end up, at absolute zero. Granted it would take some time to get there but that would be the ultimate outcome.

Likewise the speed of a train is not relative to the speed which has varied between 180 and 300 km/h over the past 30 minutes. Rather, it's an absolute speed - if it increases from 200 to 300 then it's going 50% faster. That it doesn't go below 180 other than when stopping is irrelevant in that calculation. We don't say that increasing from 200 to 220 is doubling its speed because it's now 40 km/h above 180 rather than being 20 km/h above 180 which seems to be your argument.

Same with anything. 160 MW is twice as much power as 80 MW. That the machine can't stay online below 40 MW doesn't change that. There's no subtracting the 40 MW in the calculation and then arguing that 160 is actually 3 times as much as 80 because it's 3 times as far above the minimum.

We're dealing with absolute quantities. 400K is twice as hot as 200K. 100 km/h is 25% faster than 80 km/h. 500 MW is 5 times as much power as 100 MW. What constitutes a normally expected range isn't a factor in any of that.

The real issue though is science versus religion.

I have put forward a hypothesis and some choose to take the approach of flat denial rather than seeking to prove or disprove it via experiment or at least calculation. That's the exact same approach which said don't worry about lead, DDT, smoking, CFC's, CO2 or all manner of other things. Just trust us it's all safe......

That approach is also the one which leads many thinking people to distrust the entire issue. As with any form of scrutiny, if there's nothing to hide then there's no reason to be hiding it.

If the ATO asks to audit my taxes or the police want to inspect my house then as someone with nothing to hide I'll be happy to go along with it. If however I try to avoid it, well then any decent Police Officer will then be immediately suspicious since the act of seeking to avoid scrutiny is of itself a huge red flag that something's up. Same in any situation. Avoiding scrutiny is always a red flag.

Those with a scientific interest in the issue would of course already be aware that real climate scientists and the IPCC have themselves raised concerns about the issue of heat input, specifically that brought about by changes in albedo caused by black carbon (soot) deposition and the loss of ice cover. No doubt a Google search will bring up relevant reports.

Regardless of whether that turns out to be an issue or not, the discussion has demonstrated rather well the problem of religion versus science on this topic and why many are wary. :2twocents
Click to expand...

Your examples are not representative of measuring the earths temperature range if you start at 0 degrees Kelvin.

In contrast your train speed starts at 0 km / hr.
 
Knobby22 said:
Why is it always culture wars rather than issues?
Why is it wrong for the young to be upset and try to do something about it.
(Thanks for bringing in the leftist plot bit)
Click to expand...
Its not a plot, just stupidity.
It was framed a left vs right issue long before I waded in. Its also big business with billions of dollars sloshing around.

Its been roughly 15 years. Even though everyone agrees on the basics here, its still pretty much a "stuck" subject.
Theres been lies, scare campaigns, shame tactics, labeling etc. It doesn't/hasn't work(ed). Its thus far been a colossal failure.

This shouldn't be viewed as a "fringe" concern. But as you mentioned should be about the issues. But the cheap gimmicky crap thats been thrown about was only preaching to the converted.

I'm fine with the science. I'm fine with much of what rob posts. I just don't think anything much will be done. Especially with the rise of the authoritarian populist right. I haven't got a lot of faith at this point.
 
basilio said:
Folks, if you don't like being told by a 16 year that we are going down a really dangerous path how about reading the report from those who told her what is happening.

WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2018

Statement by the United Nations Secretary-General

The data released in this report give cause for great concern. The past four years were the warmest on record, with the global average surface temperature in 2018 approximately 1 °C above the pre-industrial baseline.

These data confirm the urgency of climate action. This was also emphasized by the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C. The IPCC found that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will require rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities, and that global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide need to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching “net zero” around 2050.

To promote greater global ambition on addressing climate change, I am convening a Climate Action Summit on 23 September. The Summit aims to mobilize the necessary political will for raising ambition as we work to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. Specifically, I am calling on all leaders to come to New York in September with concrete, realistic plans to enhance their nationally determined contributions by 2020 and reach net zero emissions around mid-century. The Summit will also demonstrate transformative action in all the areas where it is needed.

There is no longer any time for delay. I commend this report as an indispensable contribution to global eŒfforts to avert irreversible climate disruption.

https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=5789
Click to expand...
Again, this:
Screenshot_20190921-162004.png
 
Klogg said:
Again, this:
View attachment 97607
Click to expand...

Klogg do you realise that the prediction made by the UN official in 1989 is in fact being played out right now ?

Global warming was being recognised as a critical problem by the mid 80's . The understanding then was that if action wasn't taken within 10 years to reverse the trend then, over time (not in the year 2000) rising sea levels would affect low lying countries. Think Pacific islands, Bangladesh.

This is 2019. We have gone to point where the melt of Arctic, Antarctic and glacial ice is moving so quickly sea level rises are affecting scores of places around the world.

https://thecityfix.com/blog/5-major-cities-threatened-climate-change-sea-level-rise-emily-cassidy/
 
moXJO said:
Its not a plot, just stupidity.
It was framed a left vs right issue long before I waded in. Its also big business with billions of dollars sloshing around.

Its been roughly 15 years. Even though everyone agrees on the basics here, its still pretty much a "stuck" subject.
Theres been lies, scare campaigns, shame tactics, labeling etc. It doesn't/hasn't work(ed). Its thus far been a colossal failure.

This shouldn't be viewed as a "fringe" concern. But as you mentioned should be about the issues. But the cheap gimmicky crap thats been thrown about was only preaching to the converted.

I'm fine with the science. I'm fine with much of what rob posts. I just don't think anything much will be done. Especially with the rise of the authoritarian populist right. I haven't got a lot of faith at this point.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. If we accept that "everyone agrees on the basics here," that "This shouldn't be viewed as a "fringe" concern." and that your fine with the science how would you suggest one should engage people ? And out of interest what do you understand to be the basics and the science ?

What are you suggesting could/should/might be done ? Or is it just too late in the day to do anything practical so as Explod suggest lets just party ?
 
If i might put in my two cents.
Albeit their are argument for both sides and there definitely should be discussion about how we approach climate change, i think that any argument denying climate change is not only invalid but quite a display of ignorance. Any semi-competent high school chemistry student could give evidence to the impact of climate change, albeit to only a small degree that scientists can prove. I do agree however that there is quite a lot of ignorance on the environment forefront, with the more vocal activists perhaps doing it more so from a pseudo-moralistic standing, to look good to their peers and family. But i think that, arguments regarding Greta Thunberg being used as a means by which some leftist agenda is hiding behind is not only irrelevant but entirely ignorant. Greta is being used largely as the figure head of this movement for a multitude of reasons, she represents the up and coming generations and the fact that they, or rather we, are inherently scared for our future, and with little influence over the law making and electoral systems, the one way we can do it is through protests. Its accentuating the statement that this child is more aware of her surroundings than the adults comprising the issues, her frustration is so evident that her fear for the environment takes precedent over her schooling. You should at least respect that.
I do agree however that there are lots of criticism to be received on both fronts, i enjoy debating both sides of the argument regardless of my personal standing, and even though (in case you havent already picked) i'm heavily for a more eco friendly and conscience society. I do see how some might perceive the movement as, to a degree, rather lackluster and disingenuous, as many of my debates with peers show that its more a pseudo-moralistic issue to them rather than an inherent fear. Renewable energy isn't perfect and there should be heavy consideration into increasing the efficiency of such, or possible alternatives, but i don't see how deliberations upon tiny mistakes in ones wording, or mathematics is relevant to an issue so evident that even a junior school student could understand.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I've made it extremely clear that I am referring to a percentage and that the reason is simply that a substantial portion of the public doesn't recognise 0.5 as meaning half or 50% etc. As with any subject, there's no reason to use terms which bring unnecessary confusion unless confusion is the objective.

The subject is climate not maths so there's no reason to not use widely understood terms to convey the message provided the units are stated which I have done.

1/8000 = 0.0125%

Tell someone it's 0.000125 and that's meaningless to a large portion of the population. Those who are familiar with that would in general have a better understanding of maths and no difficulty accepting the use of a percentage figure instead - we're talking about climate not purist maths and I've intentionally used terms that most people can understand.

Likewise I could say that Kelvin is Kelvin, it's not measured in degrees, but if someone wants to say "degrees Kelvin" well then that's not actually going to matter in the context of the discussion so there's no need to be worrying about such detail given the subject at hand. Far more useful to focus on the actual numbers and their significance than the semantics of what to call them. :2twocents
Click to expand...
Smurf and I agree on more things than we disagree.
I disagree that it can be the case that a natural system in our extant world (ie billions of years after any singularity event) has a zero starting point. So I disagree with him that we should measure changes in the planet's temperature from Kelvin's absolute zero. An important example: We need to measure changes in cloud cover to better understand climate. How useful would it be to start at zero?
I have also privately told him that I disagreed with his idea that "most people would find the concept that 1/8000 being equal to 0.0125% as being more than sufficient for the purpose."
While it is an accurate percentage, a good many people would think that 0.00125 was less than 0.0125%, despite it being ten times greater.
My point was that the fraction 0.000125 is trivial in terms of human contributions to surface warming by energy consumption alone. Indeed, Smurf effectively echoed that sentiment above when he said, "Tell someone it's 0.000125 and that's meaningless to a large portion of the population."
We all know how statistics can be used to achieve whatever end the writer desires, so I do try to put things into a more appropriate climate context.
Back on topic, yes Bas, this site is a microcosm.
Let's shoot the messenger - via Greta - rather than deal with what she is saying.
This morning I listened to a person who regards himself as a climate optimist. He reckons that the probable turn of the century outcome is 4Kelvin more than the baseline temperature. But he thinks it's possible, with concerted action, to get that closer to 3Kelvin.
Right now it is difficult to find any climate scientist - and I am talking about those actively researching and publishing - who thinks it's possible to stop the warming trend this century.
We who are not the younger generation are effectively bequeathing the planet to our children without a care. They, and their children will see economic and social disruption from climate change at a scale we cannot imagine.
I hope Joe can keep this site going for a good while longer so that these posts can be reflected upon.
And I hope also that gold prices keep rising so that I can post elsewhere at his excellent website.
 
qldfrog said:
Same here..but a shame that it has become religion vs science indeed
Pathetic and screwing lives, economy and ultimately the planet
Click to expand...
Please show where you have presented any science.
I consistently link to information showing you make claims which are unsound.
Yet you keep making them.
If there is a religion here, it exists as all religions do, without evidence.
 
basilio said:
Fair enough. If we accept that "everyone agrees on the basics here," that "This shouldn't be viewed as a "fringe" concern." and that your fine with the science how would you suggest one should engage people ? And out of interest what do you understand to be the basics and the science ?

What are you suggesting could/should/might be done ? Or is it just too late in the day to do anything practical so as Explod suggest lets just party ?
Click to expand...
Theres a stigma attached to the warming debate now. Personally I think the whole things a mess of an argument. With what is realistically possible with the reduction of carbon/renewables exaggerated.
Greta will be the latest internet meme.
Its a gimmick that won't win over the people it thinks it will.

The other thing is the money of climate change. Its big business. Oil isn't the only one distorting the message. Doomsday messages won't work. Neither will giving credibility to some of the bs scenarios or data.

If you want to reduce carbon then reduce it where it matters first ie china, india.

Australia being realistic about the problem: could only have a real effect on carbon reduction by stopping coal exports, or developing tech. One of those ain't happening soon.


I don't think the world will end, but I think nothing will be done for a while yet. I think its too late now as the right has risen across the world. I mentioned years ago that the lefts consistent whining would in fact bring more problems. The big one being inaction.

How would I frame it?
Simplify. We can argue over the data endlessly and there are so many variables. Pollution and mans immediate effect. "Climate change" as a movement or label has become to divisive.
 
Always interesting to see what Wayne will find and promote from the depths of the web.
The Twitter poster you quote is on her umpteenth account becasue Twitter somehow keeps deciding she is serial psycho, lying, wacko.

Did you want to show us the rest of rubbish MSQ post on Greta ?

Of course that rubbish is swallowed hook line and sinker across the world.
https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1176566569587134464
 

Similar threads

basilio
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
springhill
springhill
2020hindsight
  • Poll
Which IPCC Scenario is your guess?
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
2020hindsight
2020hindsight
Top