This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
As I see it, reality is that we're faced with adapting to changed and changing climate and that at this point in time there's no option to avoid that change occurring given it already has and that further change seems inevitable.

To the extent that I disagree with what anyone else is saying, it's with the notion that climate change mitigation would at this point be an effective means of fire mitigation. Reality is it might have been at some point in the past but it's too late for that now.

Politically, Hawke, Keating or Howard might have been able to convince the world to address the emissions issue but it's nonsense to pretend that anything Morrison could have done about emissions would have avoided the fire situation. He could have done other things which might have helped certainly but the emissions issue is a far longer term one than that.

I'll draw an analogy to human health and say that absolutely it is good advice to get regular exercise, eat a healthy diet, don't smoke and so on and that's commonly known. In practice however our situation is comparable to someone who's already got a seriously bad diagnosis. Telling them how they could have avoided it is at this point of no real help. What they need to do now is focus on recovery and avoiding a repeat incident but it's too late to avoid it happening at all and there's no point pretending that eating vegetables and breathing fresh air will cure cancer. Might've avoided it in the first place yes but won't cure it now. The only option is surgery, radiation treatment and whatever else might help.

Much the same with fires. We need to do things, whatever, with a view to the reality of the climate we have and are going to have. That means big changes.....
 
Smurf1976 said:
Much the same with fires. We need to do things, whatever, with a view to the reality of the climate we have and are going to have. That means big changes.....
Click to expand...

Agreed there, the point is do we have a government capable of making those big changes or will they do as little as possible and rely on advertising campaigns to try and convince the public that they have done enough ?

After the last week's disaster I have serious doubts about the former option and lean heavily towards the latter.
 
Smurf1976 said:
We need to do things, whatever, with a view to the reality of the climate we have and are going to have. That means big changes.....
Click to expand...
Yes it does.
So despite what must be absolutely overwhelming evidence of how bad things are destined to become, and despite the equally overwhelming evidence that it was going to get this bad, our PM is still sitting on his hands while Australia burns.
If that is not the epitome of incompetence in leadership I do not what else is.
 
The chickens are coming home to roost aren't they ?
Yes climate change is here and adaptation to the new climate reality is essential.
But that is just not sufficient for anything more than a 5-10 year window (if that..)

If we somehow can't drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pull gigatons of CO2 out of the atmosphere our climate will just get hotter and hotter. And that is effectively the end of it.

We currently have 1.2-1.5C extra arming in Australia. We are seeing the consequence and the summer of 2020 has just begin.

Climate scientists tell us we have 2C all but locked in with the current GG levels. Holding global temperatures to that level will require heroic levels of climate mitigation efforts - on top of adaptation plans to survive the current new reality.

Ignoring the need to go all out on CC mitigation because we "have to adapt " just won't work. As Explod says we may as well party.

This is what a climate emergency looks like.
https://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/
 
Smurf1976 said:
Perhaps consider how a crowning fire forms and spreads.
Click to expand...

This from the person who suggested controlled burns during non existent floods ?
Or hazard reduction burns during the same flash flooding ?

Two types of fires.
All have basically similar basic properties but ... totally dissimilar.
Climate conditions .... Fuel load .... topography

Normal fire ... all three relevant.

Not so normal,
Extreme or catastrophic conditions. Ones I did raise, but well ... ignored here.

Fuel load at ground level and fire breaks ... pretty irrelevant. Look at the picture and CSRIO study along with RFS and others.
Leaps from tree top to tree top. Both Vic fire chief and NSW one have time and time again discussed this.

Extreme and catastrophic conditions are .. extreme heat ... low humidity and wind even worse.

So being pop pooed for pointing out 36 month total rainfall lows ... 150 year lows.
then all time 150 year temperature highs ..
then 150 year low humidity ...

all discarded .. for some gibberish about averages and if only there had been controlled burns or Greenies.

Silly thing is ... in a fire storm ... in extreme or catastrophic conditions ultra low humidity, ultra dry .. and high heat with WIND ... it really is totally irrelevant fuel loads on the ground.

Fires leap 5 km 10km ... tree top to tree top .... which is yep dry ... hence the Tathra incident of 2018 where I lived. How Eden fire actually did 40 km in a very short time and now 60 km.

Not a debate ... past that. Fire breaks in those conditions ... sadly an aside.

This is the brave new world where denial of anything unusual going on as climactic observations hit 150 lows, ones predicted and predicted to get worse are still denied.

I cannot change what is actual conditions. Not about to debate someone such as some even denying this irrefutable evidence of 150 year high temps and low humidity and low rainfall.

In their universe floods appear to be relevant even when 2,581 km away of a flash flood 450 kms away from current fires was a missed opportunity to do a hazard reduction burn.

Fires do actually burn better in hot dry conditions and to have it suggested that a controlled burn was an option after a flash flood is someone who has never ... tried to light a campfire in the rain.

There is to be blunt ... NO solution to extreme of catastrophic climate changes. NONE. None in relation to fighting fires.

If you wish as many do that climate issues are not real, of this was a one off event, so be it. Funny the same event where Tundra covering permafrost and frozen bones for 35,000 years on the top layers and 1 million year old vegetation have caught alight and raged the last 2 years across the Arctic and Canadian and Siberian regions of it.

IPCC models actually do not contain any change for the Permafrost melting because the USA and Canada with Saudi Arabia had it removed along with the help of our Government. A release of frozen and captured CO2 that contains more CO2 than we humans have emitted ... in 200 years .. was not expected after fudging by USA lobby in the IPCC to happen till post 2100.

Its sadly occurring 80 years early.

We already hit the 1.5 degree target rise ... for 2100 globally in 2018 ... let alone 2019. Response was with the USA coal Barrons wife at the UN is that this pre industrial starting point moved from 1750 to 1810 so we were and are only 1.1 C higher. The amount sadly of CO2 and CH4 methane to be released which is 40 times if not 80 times worse as the atmosphere cannot deal with the breaking down of it and the time just to break CH4 into CO2 and H2O has doubled in 15 years.

An at best estimate on the actual 2100 realistic target is even of Kyoto were to be met a rise of 2.5 degrees ignoring Artic CO2 melt and CH4 issues that USA presidents, and out own, and not just Trump ... Obama was shocking Bush Junior was funded by Enron. The best estimate from the very best IPCC guys from Cambridge and Oxford in the UK along with several others is a rise of not 1 C or 2C which the latter is diabolical which defies description, the recent Madrid conference had the panel with the most respected brains ranging from 4-6 C gains by 2100.

I know alarmist or whatever.

Howling at the moon but one does try ... even for what little worth and abuse it receives.
Australia I would agree if it went to zero emissions would not matter a lot. The cost would strangely be ZERO or close to it, it would of course mean losses for coal and others but ... who cares.

Burn baby burn as they say.
Trying to stop a petrol fire with the garden hose does not work.
Trying to stop this type of fire ... with Climactic and water content and heat and wind at extremes ..

Good luck.

It is possible with a metal piped sprinkler system when the front approaches to cover your house and anything flammable in a fine water mist and emerge when the front passes to put out any spot stuff.

Standing on the roof with your hose in the face of a firestorm ?

Good luck ... again.

Climate denial and non acceptance of even current relevant temperature and humidity levels is absurd.
Suggesting even that its possible to control burn in extreme or severe conditions as seem even in winter is doubly absurd.

Then again in these types of fires, or firestorms, the fuel load at ground level ... GROUND level is not relevant.

I thank you for your input ... but in the study ... it conceded Fuel load is totally irrelevant in extreme and catastrophic conditions. FFDI; when you exceed an FFDI of about 50, you switch from fuel-dominated to a weather-dominated fire."At this point, while fuel has a small effect, it is overwhelmed by the weather.

What was the fire rating ? Up in the 90 region ....
 
basilio said:
The chickens are coming home to roost aren't they ?
Click to expand...

Chickens can do strange things.

Somewhat bizarrely one turned up at a family member's house the last time I or any family member were ever there (has now been sold). Owned since 1981 and as the final items were being loaded in to the car with just hours to go a chicken did indeed turn up in the backyard. First and only time. Amazing.

But yes I know what you mean......

If we somehow can't drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pull gigatons of CO2 out of the atmosphere our climate will just get hotter and hotter. And that is effectively the end of it.
Click to expand...

I'll be straight to the point and ask you a blunt question. Not trying to be rude or anything, just whacking the nail on the head etc.

Do you seriously, honestly believe this is actually going to happen?

My personal conclusion FWIW is no, nothing that's anywhere close to being sufficient is actually going to be done.

If you'd asked me anytime between 1988 and ~2005 then I'd have said it was the top priority environmental issue and would have pushed the case pretty strongly that anything else about plastics or dams or aesthetics or urban smog or whatever should only be a focus if it in no way added to the climate problem (noting that not always but very often fixing these other things adds CO2).

Realistically though well I've seen plenty of energy statistics and right now we're in a situation that's akin to the person who's still stuck in traffic on their way to the airport 10 minutes before the plane takes off. Technically we haven't yet missed the flight but there's no way we're going to get there in time so that's just a technicality. At this point, even just getting emissions back down to year 2000 levels seems an impossible goal.
 
We can go round in circles till the planet burns (apparently) but the only solution that is even going to come close to satisfying our energy needs is nuclear.
Everything else is blowing in the wind, so to speak.
 
dutchie said:
We can go round in circles till the planet burns (apparently) but the only solution that is even going to come close to satisfying our energy needs is nuclear.
Everything else is blowing in the wind, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Complete nonsense.
Australia's entire electricity needs can be met with solar+batteries faster than a single nuclear plant could be built, and it could be done at a fraction of the cost.
Refer yourself to LCOE data to get clued in.
 

I have no idea if drastic GG reduction is going to happen.

However I'm certain that if we don't have a red hot go at it, there is no chance at all of it happening.
I'm also (99.99%) certain that if we continue on our present path the climate will become hotter and hotter to the point that our current ecosystems and civilisations will totally break down.
That time line can be measured in decades. If the current fires are any indication even that time frame would be reduced.

These observations reflect the body of climate scientists who have been on this case for the last 40 years.
This summary by a climate scientist goes to the heart of the issue. The second article is his contribution to the discussion about the current bushfires.

The terrible truth of climate change

By Joëlle Gergis

The latest science is alarming, even for climate scientists
In June, I delivered a keynote presentation on Australia’s vulnerability to climate change and our policy challenges at the annual meeting of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the main conference for those working in the climate science community. I saw it as an opportunity to summarise the post-election political and scientific reality we now face.

As one of the dozen or so Australian lead authors on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) sixth assessment report, currently underway, I have a deep appreciation of the speed and severity of climate change unfolding across the planet. Last year I was also appointed as one of the scientific advisers to the Climate Council, Australia’s leading independent body providing expert advice to the public on climate science and policy. In short, I am in the confronting position of being one of the few Australians who sees the terrifying reality of the climate crisis.

Preparing for this talk I experienced something gut-wrenching. It was the realisation that there is now nowhere to hide from the terrible truth.

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue...0/jo-lle-gergis/terrible-truth-climate-change

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...c-predictions-come-to-pass-in-these-bushfires
 
basilio said:
I have no idea if drastic GG reduction is going to happen.

However I'm certain that if we don't have a red hot go at it, there is no chance at all of it happening.
Click to expand...

I should have added to my post that my reasoning is politics not technical constraints.

In theory sure, from a technical perspective I'm sure that you, I and many others could come up with a workable plan.

Politically though, well if I look at over 30 years of "progress" on the issue then what I see is that it always comes off second at best. There's always something else, from clearing urban smog to economic ideology to aesthetics, which beats climate change when it comes to the crunch.

That has been the pattern since before the issue became mainstream in the 1980's and remains the pattern today. With the odd exception there's just about always something else deemed more important.

Hence my pessimism about actually fixing it.
 

Like a surplus
 
Smurf1976 said:
Hence my pessimism about actually fixing it.
Click to expand...

Myself and others on this thread, if you read back .... that 33% of people still believe warming it is not caused by humans, speaks for itself.

Without speaking for anyone else, I would agree we ... humans ... have known about this issue and its scope for 30 years, even 100 years, still we sadly will debate for another 30.

As someone well versed in IPCC and what is actually missing from it, the models, an at best 2100 target as shared in Madrid as the Australian govt took a lead role in sabotaging any and all efforts, the USA didn't bother sending anyone other than a janitor, we ...are stuffed.

We .... as a species, have a window that is actually closed. One side world population rising to 10 billion or 40% . flip-side ... some canary in the coalmine events are occurring and NOT the fires.

I speak sadly more on Arctic permafrost melt and release of 1.6 trillion tons of captured CO2 essentially all that we have emitted to 2020 since 1750, added to this is methane and its actually likely 40 times as bad minimum possibly 80 times and I say this not vaguely but because the time it takes to break down and impact has risen 50% in 30 years.

It is all missing from IPCC models ... totally.

Minimum expected rise via very respected IPCC guys was 4 degrees and highest was 6 degrees by 2100. That was even if Kyoto and Paris agreement met.

Kiss your kids or grand kids and say sorry. A child aged 10 when they reach age 70, and it actually is an if when likely 500 million climate refugees in the IPCC report of 2018 ... massive crop fails predicted post 2050 .... but since the permafrost is melting ... Arctic Ice volume 95% gone, the cover is merely down 35% ... but its thin and full of salt.

All of it removed from climate models ... on the fable it would not occur till 2100. A lie well known and even NASA satellites recording 95% of the total ice volume gone, still the removed this ... atom bomb from the IPCC climate models.

I watched Fox/Sky news today as the presenter at 7 pm mocked CO2 issues, any and all of them, even Julia Bishop ex Foreign minister who merely said Australia should be taking a leadership role on climate ... not following.

The scope of what we have released, burning previous extinction events capture of CO2 when we burn coal and petrol, we now understand how diabolical they are. Not even the day after 800,000 hectares burnt in a day ... close to 200,000 in Victoria and 300,000 in the alp snowy region and another 200,000 far south coast, NOT EVEN 48 hours latter Murdoch and Sky could not even wait that long.

Sadly as a species, we have little hope.
Meanwhile the worlds leader ... or so he tells himself ... executed a military leader actually visiting the Prime Minister of Iraq. Whilst not a good man the Iranian General ... strangely Iran was instrumental in 2001 helping the USA to invade Afghanistan and so too in defeating ISIS ... Iran played a far bigger role as did the Kurds in its defeat. ISIS of course was created after the invasion 2003 of Iraq and its head, the old heads of the Iraq military.

War it is ...

Ignore the climate and sadly we follow USA everywhere. Morrison spent 2 minutes speaking about how good the USA was on climate efforts. They left the Paris and Kyoto agreements totally.

We lack even a person with a spine .. not of course that even if we changed anyone would care.

So I agree ... lets not care and keep the kids, grand-kids in the dark.

They are after all just some other species we make extinct or a vastly altered planet which its unlikely even being the ultra optimist will not proceed without massive conflict, deaths via starvation and indifference which whilst hardest hit Africa is followed by India a nuclear power, and Pakistan also who if climate does and surely will change at some stage will have multi year crop fails. Or say a drought followed by a flood then a drought and 2 years rain in a week, and repeat it over and over.

How will a billion starving people react ?

Alarmist ? I would suggest the IPCC report for 2018 whilst a very watered down and tamed by USA in its chilling predictions, double them and one may come close. Since we are already in 2019 at 1.5 C temp increase and its not 2100 ... dispute, deny ... whatever.

Strangely the fires have a benefit and a very large downside to the future. Whilst a net CO2 zero impact, tree burns releases CO2 and then grows again, the benefit is with so much soot and stuff in the air its likely for 12-24 months things cool or appear to cool maybe as much as 1C. Fantastic .... and awful.

Awful because the apparent cooling is a soot filled air and NO ACTION likely for years. People such as FOX news and Trump will go look. Awful because even a slight change in the color of snow makes it melt quicker. Arctic now not totally ice covered and melting during more and more weeks each summer, the pristine white ... reflects heat, melted snow and brown stuff absorbs it.

Its unlikely a fire here will drop soot on the Arctic, or any Antarctic region. I do note that NZ glaciers have taken on a soot covered look not that we care.

Kiss those Grand kids or even your kids if they are under 20 because in 50 years I suspect ... so too does the best scientists on the planet know and like me, depressed and in despair. Many have just given up as models are altered by Saudi Arabia at the IPCC ... or the USA or Canada.

Here is the head of it ... the IPCC ... nice guy, he handles it and whilst trying his best, his very best ... his speech recently was filled actually with dismay and resignation for our species. Our 6th Extinction event. Same reasons and same causes and same outcome for the previous 5. Whilst I am sure some will survive the mayhem that awaits the planet, what is assured as much as the sun rising makes the number likely less than 10% of what we peak out at so 1 billion at best, possibly lower if the ocean gives back all the CO2 it absorbs before we halt CO2 emissions totally.

Seems sadly unlikely.


Michael Mann lead author in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

HE like many in the field ... waved the white flag at the IPCC.
HE was attacked via Various Koch Brothers interests in the media and savaged.

Such is life ... back to Fox news and Tucker Carlson and President Trumps tweets on how many ways he break the Geneva convention and cause a new war.
 
Last edited:
ahhh ....

Mp Liberal .... No trend of weather. Really ... BOM says the opposite as to the IPCC ... its an outright lie. They warn of DIRE and EXTREME concerns.

3 year rainfall ... BRIGHT red is LOWEST ever on record TOTAL ...



Rainfall percentages
last 3 years ...


Whilst only 3 years ... I will check back the 1900 period is COVERED in the first map of LOWEST EVER totals ...

Making the last 3 years shocking but lets see if there was some period pre 2016 of exceptional rainfall nationally over and above
 
BOM long term stuff ... he .... LIED ...

Surprise surprise ...

Why am I shocked. This data set COVERS 1900 till 2019 ...
the 10 and 20 year totals actually contradict his assertions totally and they are only updated by BOM to 2015 .... that's from their site.

Source ... scientific ... incontrovertible data ... if you not delusional or a liar.

Liar liar ... pants on fire. Well his electorate was !! Partially singed.
 
Last edited:

Things will be done around the world if it's financially rewarding for countries to do so, which means renewables will need to be cheaper than fossil fuel energy. This will occur more and more as fossil fuels run out and become more costly to extract and renewable technology improves.

Whether this will occur in time to prevent runaway warming is another matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
622
Smurf1976
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Fake News - Global Warming Consensus
40 41 42
Replies
831
Views
46K
SirRumpole
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
springhill
M
Rothschild Australia, leaders in carbon trading market
Replies
2
Views
5K
So_Cynical
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...