Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[SirRumpole]

Smurf, as I understand it, you believe that the climate is warming but that CO2 is not necessarily the cause.

Am I correctly representing your view ?

If so I'd be interested to know what other factors you feel may be responsible.

 

[rederob]

Thanks for the response.

Having followed this debate for very much longer than being a member at ASF, and followed this thread since, I agree with many of your comments.
@Smurf1976's logic seems to be lacking in so many examples he put forward, so here's my take on a number of them:

1. VW's issues had nothing to do with climate change per se.
2. All vehicle transportation CO2 issues can be solved by moving rapidly to EV and hydrogen, with wind/solar the source energies.
3. It is a furphy to propose the nuclear industry is a possible solution to CO2 reductions when renewables can fill the void more quickly and more cheaply. Furthermore, the nuclear solution to CO2 mitigation is very late to the party because everyone knew how expensive it really was.
4. The argument that other technologies cause separate problems is a classical avoidance technique, and whenever put to the test in relation to CO2 mitigation are regularly shown to be based on biased or poor assumptions.
5. The idea that climate cannot be modelled or that the paleoclimate record of CO2 and temperature changes are not adequate might be sufficient as reasons for doubt if there were other contenders for the solution. @SirRumpole has queried this same point. It's a bit like being open to the theory of gravity. We know the consequences and can calculate on the basis of what we know, but we don't' know everything... yet!

 

[IFocus]

Liked Dr Karls summary on climate change.

He doesn't believe in climate change, he accepts the science.

 

[kahuna1]

Lets keep testing ... say the effect of CO2 tested and known in 1880 ...

Lets keep testing

Another 9 years please.

 

[basilio]

Lets keep testing ...

Another 9 years please.

I don't think we need to "test" the current situation to breaking point.
When the evidence is overwhelming and the consequences so grave one takes action ASAP.
There is rarely total certainty about an outcome.

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf, as I understand it, you believe that the climate is warming but that CO2 is not necessarily the cause.

Am I correctly representing your view ?

If so I'd be interested to know what other factors you feel may be responsible.

My view is that:

The climate is warming.

This is a serious problem.

CO2 appears to be the major cause.

There are other known causes of lesser significance but not insignificant as such. These include methane, various synthetic gases, changes in albedo and so on. Individually many of those are minor but not zero and should not be dismissed without proper research.

Given that a vast number of natural systems are involved it is almost certain that we don’t fully understand the details of various consequences and so on of warming and the consequences of that are potentially destructive.

As one random example - would a warmer climate lead to termites becoming a problem in cooler climates where they are not currently present? That alone could bring significant practical and economic consequences in those areas.

As such since about 1992 I have:

Minimised my own contribution to emissions within the bounds of reasonable practicality. That includes bringing about change among others where I’ve had the ability to do so.

Advocated that society needs to move to an electric economy and that the means of producing that electricity needs to shift in an orderly manner over a reasonable timeframe to eliminate ongoing CO2 emissions. For the record that advocacy has been primarily in the real world, targeting real MP’s and so on, not simply online.

I’ve had an open mind as to the detail of change - how to do it and in what period of time. My answer there is see what technical innovation brings and what the science says needs to be done. This does not mean making exuses for inaction - it simply means not committing to the details of how (technology etc) until we’re actually about to do it thus gaining advantage from technical improvements and so on.

In that regard the emergence of cheap solar PV, a situation that wasn’t widely foreseen even earlier this century, has changed the game substantially. Not too long ago the focus was on trying to make hot rocks or solar thermal work but cheap PV changed the game dramatically. PV now looks likely to end up as the largest component of the end solution - an unthinkable concept even a decade ago.

I also advocate for continued research into both causes and effects. Apart from cost which isn’t huge there’s no credible argument against research and very likely something of use will be discovered. That is particularly so with regard to consequences and adaptation noting that due to the long life of buildings etc any adaptation needs to commence well before a problem arises.

If we’re going to try and relocate a species to save it or we’re going to need to change building codes well it’s a lot better do be doing that now rather than waiting until something’s just about extinct or we’re having buildings fall down and so on. Research is never a bad idea - absolute worst case we waste a modest amount of money.

I also observe that the political agenda surrounding this issue has been hijacked by all manner of unrelated agendas the presence of which blocks any effective action. This is to the extent that in an Australian context the value of government is negative in this context - it’s holding back progress.

That’s a summary of my position on the issue.

 

[kahuna1]

I don't think we need to "test" the current situation to breaking point.
When the evidence is overwhelming and the consequences so grave one takes action ASAP.
There is rarely total certainty about an outcome

4

I was being sarcastic in the extreme.

Either you accept CO2 in any atmosphere causes warming or you dont.

Either you accept the burning of carbon fuels is the cause or you do not ...

Either you accept humans are the cause or you do not

Either you accept other Greenhouse gasses such as CFC's and CH4 ... methane are human caused or you do not

Either you accept we have not seen current CO2 levels for millions of years or you do not.

Either you accept at adding 3-4 PPM CO2 and accelerating will likely see CO2 up near 1,000 PPM with some inevitable feedback issues such as permafrost which already is melting ... or you do not.

Either you have some idea that the worse it gets, more and more cascading effects occur such as clouds being more difficult to form above 1200 PPM Co2 .... or you dont.

A lot of these things are very open and shut, not a debate ... yes sure in anything the possibility of being incorrect exists, and YES one must keep an open mind, but when the possibility is say less than 1 in a million ... with say CO2 and its effects ... or current levels verses a million years ago, well ...

then its some serious other issues which are not pleasant.

Intelligence
Trolling
Serious mental conditions .... unable to admit error or fault ... or say like causing pain
Paid for carbon based lobby groups and PR ...
Dementia
Cognitive decline

This is upsetting, but the list can go on.

If one person told you the world was flat .... you would question the above list
If a person told you smoking was good for you the same.

Some things, really beyond discussion are being rehashed and illogically so.

The question would be why do you actually think say CO2 measurement is somehow being politically altered when 4 satellites and 20 ground stations have measured it for 50 years and ice bubbles tested in the Antarctic ice shelf going back a million years have been tested independently by 15 or more nations with the same results.

If someone started talking about averages or whatever ... when they are absolute values at any point in time ... CO2 ... rainfall ... temperature ...

Its not the time to be polite after asking to correct, its time to ... stop wasting my time .... your clearly suffering one of the list.

Not about being or needing to be right or wrong, its ... fact ... science and well discussing with a person drooling on the street clearly with issues is a waste of everyone's time and the same for one which ... looks well dressed and then starts sprouting conspiracy theories every second time they write or open their mouth.

Of course to many scientific fact or climate change is a conspiracy theory.

Important to exactly find out what or whom your dealing with from the onset.

 

[SirRumpole]

That’s a summary of my position on the issue.

Hopefully The Red and Kahuna1 will leave you alone now.

 

[Smurf1976]

VW's issues had nothing to do with climate change per se.

Well they were driven by governments putting pressure on car manufacturers to lower fuel consumption which was itself driven by concerns about oil supply and CO2. Achieving that was the reason European car manufacturers became so keen on putting diesel engines into passenger cars in the first place.

Take that aspect away and diesel as a fuel for private passenger cars wouldn't likely ever have become mainstream. No diesel = no reason to cheat the emissions figures for them and no real incentive to squeeze every last bit of efficiency out of the engine.

That said, I'll agree that VW engineers and management probably weren't too worried about CO2 personally. Management were worried about keeping sales up and production costs down and engineers were worried about remaining employed. That's a fair point certainly.

All vehicle transportation CO2 issues can be solved by moving rapidly to EV and hydrogen, with wind/solar the source energies

It is a furphy to propose the nuclear industry is a possible solution to CO2 reductions when renewables can fill the void more quickly and more cheaply. Furthermore, the nuclear solution to CO2 mitigation is very late to the party because everyone knew how expensive it really was.

The argument that other technologies cause separate problems is a classical avoidance technique, and whenever put to the test in relation to CO2 mitigation are regularly shown to be based on biased or poor assumptions.

All of those come down to the same fundamental question of how urgent is this problem?

Is the CO2 issue comparable to the 20 year old who's 20kg overweight but otherwise in good health? No panic, just lose a couple of kg a year and all will be fine.

Or is it comparable to the 60 year old who's 20kg overweight and just survived a heart attack? Better follow the doctor's advice strictly and get that weight off ASAP.

At present the response of governments and indeed the points you make rest upon the notion that it needs to be done but there's no major hurry. Yes fix CO2 but it's somewhere down the list after we sort out all sorts of other things from smog to poverty.

Now to be clear, I'm not saying that those things are unimportant but I accept reality for what it is.

As a concept I'm against nuclear. First because the more nuclear materials are around, the greater the chance that they fall into the wrong hands. Second because there WILL be another major accident that's virtually a given. Third due to the waste problem. And as you mention it's also damn expensive and takes forever to build.

Reality though is that if China or the UK or the USA were to go along with the "conventional" environmentalist's view and scrap nuclear then are they really going to build renewables as a direct replacement? Or are they going to build renewables at whatever pace anyway and closing nuclear in practice means continuing with coal and/or gas for longer?

Then there's places like Germany. Nuclear already built so the cost has been incurred so if the CO2 issue was considered urgent then keeping them in operation is one way of bringing emissions down sooner. Either by closing German fossil fuel power stations earlier than they'll now close or by exporting surplus power to surrounding countries and displacing fossil fuels there. Ultimately every megawatt hour that comes out of those nuclear plants is a megawatt hour not coming from something else.

It's much the same with vehicle emissions. Sure we'll likely be starting to put hydrogen or battery powered trucks on the road in significant numbers and sometime circa 2050's diesel will no longer be a commonly used or available product. Given the time to turnover the fleet that sounds roughly right.

Is that fast enough though? If it's not then was urban smog etc really such a problem in the period 2005-09 that we needed to further tighten emissions standards (internationally, specifically EU) and accept more CO2 as the trade-off? Or is CO2 more important and we could just live with a bit more smog for longer?

It's much the same with any internal combustion engine. Minimising CO2 and minimising other pollutants doesn't occur with the same fuel and ignition mapping. Make one better and the other gets worse. Which is most important?

Note that I'm not decreeing the answers here, I'm just raising the issue for discussion. There is, after all, no harm in considering different aspects of a problem and no harm in looking over the fence to see what's there. So long as we're not proposing to build a nuclear power station in Victoria, which is illegal, then no harm done discussing things.

How urgent it actually is well I'm not at all qualified to comment there. The overall response of society thus far though has put it well down the list of issues to be fixed and to be clear, global emissions are continuing to rise thus far. If that's not good enough, if it's too slow, well then my points about "anything that works" and accepting some trade-offs become more relevant if there's some urgency that won't be addressed by the approach currently being taken.

 

[moXJO]

Now everyone can offset their carbon emissions without waiting around for the government to do it.

https://projectwren.com/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

 

[SirRumpole]

One thing that worries me is that all the PV's will eventually degrade and end up as landfill or in expensive recycling processes that produce a lot of CO2 themselves.

This is another area that our governments appear to have overlooked.

Is there a national PV recycling policy ?

 

[kahuna1]

Kahuna1 will leave you alone now.

I am struggling to understand another persons understanding .... and failing.

Whilst we, humans, a new species in the last eye-blink are the cause of the current events, this has occurred 5 previous times. Extinction type CO2 events.

Whilst the last one 65 million years ago took 70,000 years to achieve where all mammals over 30kg were made extinct including the dinosaurs, the fossil records and the actual cause initially are well known.

What changed the atmosphere and what saved it ... was massive carbon capture over 800,000 plus years as the CO2 was removed all be it glacially slowly often captured in deposits we now burn as coal and oil releasing the very thing that made oceans acidic and the climate so extreme that even ocean life was hit.

This rapid change, is well documented and hundreds of scientific studies exist ...

Whilst no alarm goes off, no urgent action is going to occur as we are already over the precipice.
It sounds alarmist, so too was the IPCC report from 2002 let alone the dire one from 2018. Thye are the smartest minds on this planet and yet, they are to be ignored by leaders and our own carrying a lump of coal into parlimant speaks for itself let alone Abbot and his views aloing with Howard who refused all sceince and refused to sign Kyoto agreement.

In fact the USA reporting and use of the word climate change via mainstream media declined by 85% in the 12 months after the IPCC report, astounding.

I cant change any of it, nor really understand logically any of it.

If there were a real and not manufactured threat to our existence why wouldn't we act. Yes I know politicized this but to ignore the self interest lobby groups of the USA and their donations influence in policy would be absurd as too out own climate denial sites funded by oil gas and coal ... Gina Rhinehart and the Liberal party luminaries driving the media ...

The last time we hit 400 ppm CO2 the temperature was 3c warmer and that's where we are NOT heading ... NOT EVEN CLOSE ...

IPCC models have NO factoring in for Arctic Permafrost melt and CO2 release along with CH4 Methane because USA and Canada and Saudi Arabia along with Australia had it removed.
HAD IT REMOVED FROM THE MODELS.

Excuse was that it will not occur till post 2100 and that, given its already clearly occurring at an increasing rate is total BS. Even ignoring 1.6 trillion tons of CO2 and I hope 15 billion tons of methane or less is likely to be released as it thaws is stupid.

This to one side, the rate of increase even without this sledgehammer hitting CO2 emissions are increasing each year.

Since we know say at 2,500 PPM its 12 degrees C likely and at 400 PPM 3 Degrees .... and the rate of CO2 is exponentially increasing each year, a 1.5c went out the window long ago.

TO remove CO2 at 400 PPM back to 290 requires all the energy released post 1750 to be applied in reverse. Natural process the last one took 900,000 years.

Hence my own 4-6 degree post 2100 scenario.

Sure things may change, cold fusion ... or some massive technological change is not enough. As BAS and others are at pains to point out, even if we went net zero by 2040 which is unlikely .... it would take 10,000 years realistically to remove it with even cutting edge technology right now. The scope and scale is every exhaust and coal fired plant for the past 200 years.

Sobering is the Arctic and a few other feedback loops impossible to stop the self interests of the USA and Saudi Arabians have removed. Arctic will DOUBLE the CO2 increase seen say since 1750 of 150 PPM so where we are as that occurs is likely over 500 PPM and this added to the methane and a few other impossible to avoid feedback loops well we are 1,000 PPM early next century and struggling to deal with around a 6C temperature increase.

 

[kahuna1]

Or this ....

IPCC stuff mainly .. in fact I believe all of it is hard data ...

 

[dutchie]

 

[kahuna1]

Lastly welcome to my world and views ...

Make your own mind up ... but again mostly IPCC stuff all be it the stuff missing feedback loops and computer models actually falling behind reality by MASSIVE margins in 2020.

For some ... illogically they will question each and every issue and data point.

Sadly I dont have the time for debate about scientific facts or chemical reactions or endothermic and exothermic ones. Either one understands the fact that the energy released in a reaction cannot be exceeded the other side or vica versa ... putting the CO2 back into the bottle is not possible or even remotely so under any conceivable advance we can make likely in a million years.

There is no magic genie ... trees forget it at 4 tons per hectare ... yep maybe algae over vast areas but 10,000 years was based upon this super CO2 absorbing thing at 140 times the rate of trees.

Enjoy .. I know Bas and Explod and others, Dark K ... have done the same prior ... and myself as well.

Its sobering. Not open for rational debate. Sorry !!

 

[rederob]

That’s a summary of my position on the issue.

All the equivocations you write about are and have been covered in great detail by numerous IPCC Reports, so I will not revisit your posts and lay them out again. Which ones have you read?
In a very different forum I was debating with an engineer who claimed that as it was very still during several days of the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 it was therefore not sensible to build wind farms in Europe.
I will close in reiterating some of your poor logic in this area with just the VW example as even you noted it had no relevance to AGW.

 

[SirRumpole]

Its sobering. Not open for rational debate. Sorry !!

I agree we are in deep shite.

I don't believe most politicians (in Australia at least) have the first idea what to do about it.

It can only get worse as the underdeveloped world develops and consumes at the rate that the developed world currently does.

The only way out imv is drastic population control or a world wide disaster reducing population by say half.

 

[kahuna1]

It can only get worse as the underdeveloped world develops and consumes at the rate that the developed world currently does.

Yep ...
I do see some light ... on going to zero tech-wise, to remove it ... or remove say 1 trillion or if we count 2 trillion tons of CO2 via the Permafrost melting is just not even conceivable.

My debate is when say we see a blue ocean event in the Arctic and less than 10% of ice is left in summer. If its as early as 2025 or at best 2050, its still 50 years early. Missing from any IPCC reports and models.

Pretending you dont know that Oil and Coal is the captured carbon from the last extinction event that wiped out every animal over 30kg is, well absurd in 2020 as it was in 1970.

In my dreams ... its a 3C rise by 2100. Likely as the panel at Madrid with the brightest and most brilliant in the field estimated its 4-6 C temp rise by 2100. USA did not even send anyone above janitor status and Australia actively sabotaged the meeting. Scott Morrison sent a cola lobbyist with a lump of coal along.

Thinking and even ignoring the 1.5C target which well, we are there ... NOW .... they just moved the starting date the USA from 1750 to 1880 .... removing the first 0.4C rise and did so, because they could with Canada and Australia rah rah rah in the background along with Saudi Arabia ....Thank the efforts of climate denial of John Howard for that one.

I dont know what happens with a rise that took 60,000 years crammed into say 500 years what the Ocean which has absorbed a lot of heat and CO2 does, its not about to get better at it as it becomes an acid bath.

Maybe I can send a few to watch volcanoes and their impacts in NZ ... or to a firestorm front or Fire Tornado front and send them with a champagne bottle filled with water. I read someone who built a fire proof house found even a champagne bottle had melted and fused with other stuff. Garden metal furniture vaporized and just silhouettes after the fire. Then again Aluminum melts at 660C and glass completely melts at 1500C and the bottle was merely very deformed, the story ... is a story. I am fairly sure the garden furniture did not vaporize as that's 2500 C or so. .

 

[basilio]

So now for the good news on addressing runaway global warming.
=-
-
-
-
-
-
That's right. There really isn't any. Having said that I'm reminded of another story I read in a biography of Richard Feyman. If you remember he was one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists in the world - an an amazing character to boot. He was also a key player in the development of the nuclear bomb.

Anyway in the late 1940's he went into a very deep depression because he was absolutely sure there would be a nuclear war which would basically make earth uninhabitable. His view was based on the certain belief that at no time in history had new military weapons not been used and he could see no way the US and USSR would not end up in a war.

Obviously he pulled out of that funk and by some miracle we haven't yet blown ourselves to kingdom come. So while I respect Kahuna scholarship and (reluctantly) agree with the figures I have to be a bit schizophrenic about the situation.

I have already had my bouts of depression about CC and they cost me dearly. In truth I see my best option and I think for most others to acknowledge we have a desperate situation and take on the personal and community efforts to radically change our societies direction and see what we can do.

Constructive action does help. George Monbiot is probably an excellent example of a CC campaigner who knows full well what is happening but has opened whole new areas of activity to challenge the situation. Check out his rewilding work and new doco Apocalypse Cow,
https://www.monbiot.com/
_____________________________________

PS Andrew Forrest has just thrown in $70 million for bushfire relief. He also unequivocal about teh role of CC in accelerating bushfires. Well worth a read
Print Email Facebook Twitter More
Mining billionaire Andrew Forrest pledges $70 million bushfire relief and recovery donation
..A further $50 million will be spent on a "national blueprint" for fire and disaster resilience to develop new approaches to mitigate the threat of bushfires, with a focus on climate change.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01...ges-$70m-donation-to-bushfire-relief/11854654

 

[kahuna1]

Yep ..

well said. I try not to think about it. A lot of the actual climate scientists have serious depression, have left the field or are in some form of despair.

Whilst none of the above, not in denial. Not about to suffer denial or what I would call Koch brothers inspired alternative realities.

One has to be positive. One also has to be realistic. Some things are going to occur. We adapt and some will make it. Most, without a miracle will not or have their lives vastly altered. Vast tracts of land from the equator to a lot of Australia become uninhabitable or very dire outside A/C. Farming dropped on its head.

Some may debate climate measurement and so on ... I do know, that the past 40 years via satellite the previous highs were 45.3 C for my current location. I know they hit 46.3 C peak in 2019. I know they just hit 48,1 C and astounding increase and since I accept previous records back to 1900 as valid, to go from under 45C in 2000 .... to 48.1C peak is what it is.

I suspect one bonus of the bush-fires is the smoke and particles in the Atmosphere keep temps about 1C lower for 18 months to 2 years. I am sure, all will be forgotten and I told you so ... till 2023 or so.

Such is the nature of the species. An extreme capacity for compassion mixed with greed cruelty and the absence of all empathy ... We believe what we wish to. Often in denial and often of late being deliberately fed a narrative that suits small if not tiny self interest groups rather than the total species.

Eventually, one must hope, at some stage we get it right. Possibly in 2024 with a more compassionate superpower. One who does not actually actively deny any and all man made climate change. Then we have the ones mouthing support yet doing the opposite who are if not worse.

Panic ? Depression ? Well will not change a thing other than our own state. Anger same thing. I prefer to take action and call idiots, idiots and try in various ways for change. Some I know are howling at the moon for now like speaking to the current goverment. It is not possible. The dialogue has been hijacked.
Its been done brilliantly and utterly convincingly and well funded by the likes of Oil and Coal and Gas people, but one day, things will change. Knowing its being done, how its being done, the dialogue being altered makes me actually smile knowing their kids children in 2100 will be no better off than others.

Possibly this species not far removed from the trees will change. The younger ones and ones not so young are actually getting traction and whilst not overnight, the times they are a changing.

I am not glib about even the 2050 situation let alone as we march towards say 2100 and if its 4 C likely 5C best guess v 1.5c now, even the blind will notice, then again USA secretary of State recently spoke about the massive oil and gas opportunities the Arctic melting would bring along with shipping routes.

Kind of sickening the USA Republican party which has a coal barons wife as the UN ambassador with no qualifications oversees the UN IPPC ... and then the USA EPA run by a coal lobbyist under Trump.

I better stop ... 2020 may bring radical change and strangely I suspect Uncle Bernie !! Who portrayed as a communist or socialist for wanting Medicare for all ... only time will tell. His Green policies will deliver a lump of coal to out PM and hit him in that fat head.

Trump dynasty and his addiction to cold tablets and other pain killers will be a memory.