Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[chiff]

I heard one NSW resident say where he lived was classed as sub-tropical.Rainfall at times was around two metres (80 inches).This year the rainfall was 400mm -16 inches
The forests are dry and if a fire starts it really goes.These temperature and rainfall patterns are changing,as the evidence shows.It is called climate change.

 

[wayneL]

Judith Curry's view, 10 years after climategate

https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/...10-years-later/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[rederob]

Judith Curry's view, 10 years after climategate

https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/...10-years-later/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Is there a reason you do not post actual science?

 

[wayneL]

Is there a reason you do not post actual science?

The science is everywhere for us to read Robbee.

And I'm kind of shocked that you didn't know that Judith is a scientist whose career has been particularly concerned with climate. What is important for us non scientists is sensible interpretation of the science, preferably by scientists.

That said, there are a number of agendas and it is important for us to try to wade through them.

This article does a good job.

Now if you wanna stop being a tw@t for the sake of it, just for a moment, you might want to read the whole thing.

 

[chiff]

For the National party in particular to be so anti- climate change makes one wonder why they are so compromised on this issue.Perhaps they are getting large donations from vested interests.Rinehart was bold enough to award Joyce 40k in public (which he at first accepted ,but then paid back).If this subverting of a democracy happens in public,who knows what goes on in private.
I would have thought after Joyce's involvement with the demise of the MDB his credibility would be zero.

 

[rederob]

And I'm kind of shocked that you didn't know that Judith is a scientist whose career has been particularly concerned with climate. What is important for us non scientists is sensible interpretation of the science, preferably by scientists.

You didn't present any science from Curry but instead referred to events many times "officially" investigated at the insistence of climate change deniers, and every time exonerated.
Again, you just throw mud because you seem unable to grasp the science.

 

[satanoperca]

Is the climate changing? YES
Has the climate always been changing? YES
Has man contributed to the more rapid change in climate? YES, but yes is to simple and answer. Is it 10%, 50% or 100%? I will leave it up Rederob and Wayne to nut that out.

But consider just two factors that have change massively in the last 100 years :
1. We have burnt a crap load of fossil fuels, while that by itself might not be a contributing factor to climate change, I firmly believe without have to be a scientist, the next one is
2. We have cleared more than 50% of the forest on the earth, trees and the natural cleaners/lungs of the planets and we have been removing them at an accelerated rate.

 

[rederob]

Has man contributed to the more rapid change in climate? YES, but yes is to simple and answer. Is it 10%, 50% or 100%? I will leave it up Rederob and Wayne to nut that out.

Put aside the percentage contributions and look at the trajectory, ie trend.
Think about what will alter the trend, ie make it cooler.
Then think about what will maintain the present trend, or increase its pace.
Not a great deal of science is needed to understand that the "levers" to achieve warming were pulled a long time ago, and these very same levers are still being pulled.
Unfortunately some of these levers produce amplifications, and that's where the science starts to get trickier, although the trend direction is not changing.

 

[SirRumpole]

It would be interesting to know what percentage of our annual CO2 emissions came from the recent bushfires.

 

[satanoperca]

Put aside the percentage contributions and look at the trajectory, ie trend.
Think about what will alter the trend, ie make it cooler.
Then think about what will maintain the present trend, or increase its pace.
Not a great deal of science is needed to understand that the "levers" to achieve warming were pulled a long time ago, and these very same levers are still being pulled.
Unfortunately some of these levers produce amplifications, and that's where the science starts to get trickier, although the trend direction is not changing.

A simple solution might be just to plant more trees.

I was at my local pub on the weekend talking to a local, he had worked with the Melbourne City council recording every tree in the area details, height, age, species, location etc. What I did not know is that every tree has a value placed on it, the valuation is based on a lot of inputs. While that in itself was interesting, the more interesting aspect of the conversation was the surveys they did on how large trees in the city provide 2 important features to the well being of the city, cooling in summer and heat retention in winter.

 

[satanoperca]

It would be interesting to know what percentage of our annual CO2 emissions came from the recent bushfires.

A guess, more CO2 than all the fossil fuels burnt in Australia over a 1 year period.
So again, if we have taken the mechanism that mother nature uses to capture the CO2 away, we are in for some trouble.
Plant more trees.

 

[rederob]

A guess, more CO2 than all the fossil fuels burnt in Australia over a 1 year period.
So again, if we have taken the mechanism that mother nature uses to capture the CO2 away, we are in for some trouble.
Plant more trees.

A lot depends on what burnt, not just area.
However, bushfires are akin to biomass for energy in that what was emitted can be reconsumed via regeneration of plant mass.

 

[satanoperca]

A lot depends on what burnt, not just area.
However, bushfires are akin to biomass for energy in that what was emitted can be reconsumed via regeneration of plant mass.

But there is the issue, we have been clearing to many forests, natures natural carbon sink has been removed.

A simple example of bio systems is a fish tank (tropical), with no plants you need massive filters which have to cleaned regularly or you plant out the tank, the plants to the filtration for you.

So, instead of our pollies doing point scoring over this issue, how about they just come up with a new initiative that I am sure 90% of the population would agree and support - a mass plantation of native trees across Australia.

They could get smart and utilise resources that are available and they are currently paying for :
1. Anyone who is on the dole, will get paid an extra $100 pw if they contribute 3-4 days planting trees.
2. Any new immigrant will have to plant xxxx trees in their first year here.
3. Anyone who wants a temporary work visa has to plant xxx trees.
4. Anyone given a community correction order is to plant trees.
There are some many resources out there for the govnuts to use.
etc
etc
We could also ask for the assistance of retirees with the admin and project planning for some sort of reward.

If people object, stone them, only kidding.

An yes I understand the logistics of such and exercise, but it is more than achievable and think about how the world would see us.

 

[wayneL]

But there is the issue, we have been clearing to many forests, natures natural carbon sink has been removed.

A simple example of bio systems is a fish tank (tropical), with no plants you need massive filters which have to cleaned regularly or you plant out the tank, the plants to the filtration for you.

So, instead of our pollies doing point scoring over this issue, how about they just come up with a new initiative that I am sure 90% of the population would agree and support - a mass plantation of native trees across Australia.

They could get smart and utilise resources that are available and they are currently paying for :
1. Anyone who is on the dole, will get paid an extra $100 pw if they contribute 3-4 days planting trees.
2. Any new immigrant will have to plant xxxx trees in their first year here.
3. Anyone who wants a temporary work visa has to plant xxx trees.
4. Anyone given a community correction order is to plant trees.
There are some many resources out there for the govnuts to use.
etc
etc
We could also ask for the assistance of retirees with the admin and project planning for some sort of reward.

If people object, stone them, only kidding.

An yes I understand the logistics of such and exercise, but it is more than achievable and think about how the world would see us.

The increased co2 is having some positive aspects in this regard, see:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

This is the same reason food production/yields are increasing.

I'd still like to see less clearing, but there are some positives.

PS, hoping that passes our Marxist curmudgeon, that suppository (sic but apt) of all knowledge .

 

[chiff]

I am reminded of Japanese soldier stragglers after WW2.They either did not know the war was over,or if they did refused to surrender.

 

[rederob]

But there is the issue, we have been clearing to many forests, natures natural carbon sink has been removed.

A simple example of bio systems is a fish tank (tropical), with no plants you need massive filters which have to cleaned regularly or you plant out the tank, the plants to the filtration for you.

So, instead of our pollies doing point scoring over this issue, how about they just come up with a new initiative that I am sure 90% of the population would agree and support - a mass plantation of native trees across Australia.

They could get smart and utilise resources that are available and they are currently paying for :
1. Anyone who is on the dole, will get paid an extra $100 pw if they contribute 3-4 days planting trees.
2. Any new immigrant will have to plant xxxx trees in their first year here.
3. Anyone who wants a temporary work visa has to plant xxx trees.
4. Anyone given a community correction order is to plant trees.
There are some many resources out there for the govnuts to use.
etc
etc
We could also ask for the assistance of retirees with the admin and project planning for some sort of reward.

If people object, stone them, only kidding.

An yes I understand the logistics of such and exercise, but it is more than achievable and think about how the world would see us.

Here's the scale of the task.
Here's the science.
Let's assume that Australia did it's bit to begin and planted 200 million trees next year. These would need to be protected from disease, pests and animals, and watered to ensure they continued to grow until of a sustainable height/age.
Lots of steps have been missed out, like the science of first selecting the right types of trees for the regional areas chosen, and the logistics of growing, transporting and planting them.
And that's after there was agreement as to exactly where they were going to be planted or could be planted.
While I reckon it's a great idea, I cannot see anyone with the vision to get it off the ground, let alone sustain it. And that's aside from getting the public to swallow the cost which will run into billion of dollars and take several decades to have its benefits realised.

 

[rederob]

Here's the scale of the task.
Here's the science.
Let's assume that Australia did it's bit to begin and planted 200 million trees next year. These would

Apologies - let's assume that Australia did it's bit to begin and planted about 100 BILLION trees.
Which means I underestimated costs by a massive margin.

 

[satanoperca]

Here's the scale of the task.
Here's the science.
Let's assume that Australia did it's bit to begin and planted 200 million trees next year. These would need to be protected from disease, pests and animals, and watered to ensure they continued to grow until of a sustainable height/age.
Lots of steps have been missed out, like the science of first selecting the right types of trees for the regional areas chosen, and the logistics of growing, transporting and planting them.
And that's after there was agreement as to exactly where they were going to be planted or could be planted.
While I reckon it's a great idea, I cannot see anyone with the vision to get it off the ground, let alone sustain it. And that's aside from getting the public to swallow the cost which will run into billion of dollars and take several decades to have its benefits realised.

Thanks for the links, but lets break down a few of your comments, starting backwards.

Billions to save the planet or do our bit, well how is the NBN and those subs working out.
Could the public swallow it, anyone under 25years would be able to, hence the protests, my son being on of the protesters. As for the rest of the population, well to bad.

Without spending 2 much time on it, I am sure there is enough people with some level of intelligence to make it happen. The funny thing about trees, given enough time the have offspring. So planting density would need to be considered.

As for disease, animals and everything else, no different to what happens in the wild at the moment and could easily be modeled.

As for the right trees, as long as they are indigenous to the area, who cares.

I will agree with you, trying to get people to agree where would be the hardest task.

So lets take one of my ideas, those on the dole, let say there are 200,000 of man/woman of resources at any one time to be utilized, then planting 200,000,000 trees, would only require each person to plant 200 trees, say it takes 5 min for each one, 12 an hour, 16 hours work. Doesn't seem unfeasible does it.

Could look at in another way, current new start is $250 pw, so having to give up 16hours of your life as a once of for $250 continuous payment sounds good to me. Only if I could scale it for my own benefit.

 

[SirRumpole]

As for the right trees, as long as they are indigenous to the area, who cares.

Eucalypts are one of the most fiercely burning trees around due to the flammability of eucalyptus oil.

Maybe consideration should be given to planting other species that are more fire resistant.

 

[rederob]

Eucalypts are one of the most fiercely burning trees around due to the flammability of eucalyptus oil.

Maybe consideration should be given to planting other species that are more fire resistant.

This one is a counterintuitive, as the fierce burning produces the necessary heat to release seeds for regeneration.

let say there are 200,000 of man/woman of resources at any one time to be utilized, then planting 200,000,000 trees, would only require each person to plant 200 trees, say it takes 5 min for each one, 12 an hour, 16 hours work.

Let's look at some basic assumptions, remembering that I did amend the figure to 100 billion (500 times more trees):

1. Seedlings immediately available = no
2. Soils are suitable = ?
3. They live exactly where the trees will be planted = no
4. They have received training in planting = no
5. They already have the equipment needed to plant the trees = no
6. They can prepare every hole and complete a planting in 5 minutes = not unless there is an automated process
7. Post-planting maintenance = how?

Now a few costs:

1. Project management
2. Scientists
3. Soil testing
4. Preparation of seedlings and logistics to move to planting areas
5. Relocation of people to carry out plantings
6. Training
7. Transportation to work sites
8. Equipment
9. Supervision and management
10. Fencing
11. Post-planting maintenance
    • replacing lost seedlings
    • watering

Having worked federally for both the Employment and Social Security (Centrelink) departments I know you have a snowflake's chance in Hades of getting a fraction of the numbers needed unless there are other incentives available to the unemployed.
Aside from that, I suspect an all up unit cost of $1 a seedling is possibly optimistic, so I hope this thumbnail gives an idea of the scope of what is necessary.