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
rederob said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you are accepting the future level of emissions upon which IPCC modeling is based upon then what, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?

The notion that someone is concerned about this issue by its very nature requires that they either consider the warming projections as modeled by the IPCC based on assumptions of future emissions to be unacceptable or that they consider the IPCC has made a significant error and has underestimated the level of future emissions and/or the extent of warming for any given concentration of CO2.

If you're happy with their results then quite simply there's no issue. Worry about something else.

If you're not happy with their results, because you consider that extent of warming to be unacceptably high or that they've underestimated it, well then you'd logically be looking at possible means of reducing the problem beyond that factored into various "base case" models.

You seem to be accepting the "slow" approach if I'm understanding you correctly. The one which says there's a problem, we'll need to sort it but let's do x, y and z first since they're more important and then we'll get around to CO2 unless something else urgent comes up in the meantime.

If you didn't think that, if you thought it was urgent, then rationally you'd at least consider pushing CO2 emissions up the priority list from where it stands at the moment as something that won't see any serious action until after we've sorted out various other things.

My comment is not a personal one, it's just noting that as with the vast majority you seem to be seeing it as something about which there's no real urgency. A problem but not one that can't wait until after we've sorted out x, y and z first. The majority are in practice on your side with or without ackowledging it - that's what's actually happening, CO2 is on the agenda but a fair way down it.

I reiterate that it's simply an observation and isn't a personal criticism in any way. If you look at the IEA forecasts or BP or any other accepted source then they're mostly fairly similar - it'll be fixed but not in a hurry.

That may be right but I'm unconvinced. I'm not in a panic but my thinking is that actual emissions cuts are needed somewhat sooner than a business as usual approach is likely to deliver. As such, I'm open to all workable means of achieving them.
 
Last edited:
Something I’ll add to my previous posts is that whilst I obviously don’t agree with rederob and kahuna1 on a number of points, ultimately it’s just a discussion and there’s nothing personal about it.

At a personal level, well the only things I take issue with when it comes to anything written is outright lies and fraud and I’m not accusing anyone here of those that’s for sure.

A lot of this really comes down to how urgent it’s perceived to be and what you expect politicians, business and the public (globally) to do in response to any particular measure, discovery or occurrence. That is of course largely an unknown.

What I will say though is that if a government knew of a substantial emissions drop being on the way no matter what they do, and then made a policy announcement to cut emissions, well that would be at least somewhat dishonest in my view. Claiming credit for what’s happening anyway. There’s a reason I’m saying that......
 
Smurf1976 said:
If you are accepting the future level of emissions upon which IPCC modeling is based upon then what, exactly, is the point you are trying to make?
Click to expand...
My points related to the things you equivocate over on a regular basis regarding the state of the science. Modelling is simply an extension of that knowledge which tells us where the planet is headed based on a range of different settings. CMIP 6 is the latest modelling platform and early iterations of trajectories suggest the earlier versions are likely to be on the conservative side.
The role of politicians worldwide is realise that they can heavily influence which trajectory we head down, and not one single one gets the planet to a better place until after most reading this post have passed away (ie next century, not this one).
While there is a view that we can all do our bit to reduce our CO2 footprint, and many posters here are much better than the average, the simple reality is that we do not have the authority to mandate energy projects that are solely based on renewables.
If nations really treated the planet as being in a state of climate emergency they could cut their defence budgets and reinvest it into climate change mitigation strategies. Not one has even contemplated this.
We oldies are lucky in that at worst we only get to experience a planet a few extra degrees warmer. Our children and theirs will not be so lucky, so what we have seen by way of summers in Australia this year will not really be the new normal. They will be instead be regarded over time as "the good years."
 

I don't know why you keep having a go at Smurf rob, he said he thinks the climate is warming, that CO2 is the most likely cause and it's a dangerous situation.

What more do you want except an argument ?

 
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.

!!
Click to expand...
A certain type of Seaweed apparently. Mass seaweed farms off Korea. Then sequestered in the deep ocean or something. It was already mapped out and is enough to offset current emissions.
A while since I read about it though.
 
SirRumpole said:
I don't know why you keep having a go at Smurf rob, he said he thinks the climate is warming, that CO2 is the most likely cause and it's a dangerous situation.
What more do you want except an argument ?
Click to expand...
I have questioned his thinking on the science which is published and where he equivocates, not his personal actions.
So here's an example:
@Smurf1976 implies the science is not clear, but he will not find this anywhere in the IPCC Reports which spell out the dangerous path that planet is on and the reasons why. The science is unequivocal in that CO2 is presently the main danger because it is long-lived - what is added today will remain additional for no less than the next century.
My hope is that someone does find a huge error in the science and that we are not on the path spelled out by the IPCC, but I fear it has no rational basis.
 
Whilst any effort is good, seaweed as such ... in an ocean that is acidifying at an alarming rate may work, but the similar thing that stopped and reversed the last CO2 event took 800,000 years over several hundred thousands of km in the Arctic to achieve. Other smaller algae and trapping of vegetation are what we now burn and call OIL deposits or Coal deposits or Gas deposits.

Its amusing to read this stuff, trapping CO2 whilst we on one hand release close to 40 billion tons of it each year and rising. The total is rising not falling and well ... some magical stop and NET zero by 2050 or 2060 ? Okey doekey.

Seaweed, algae are great to absorb CO2 and if captured and not used even better. They however will require massive scale and size in the order of literally thousands of sq km to even make dent. The tree people are dreaming at 4 tons per hectare CO2 removed and 400 per sq km. Yes a seaweed not as good as some intensive algae is around 250 tons per hectare v 1,000 ... or 25,000 tons per km the size of the non natural CO2 we emit is approaching 40 billion tons.

Simple calculation, even if we tried to suck up 1 trillion tons over say 50 years so that's 20 billion a year at 25,000 tons per sq km, the scope and sheer size needed is vast. Its actually 800,000 sq km working each year or 8 times the size of South Korea. That requires it to be sequestrated and not used for other things which, well will require massive investment from somewhere that produces NO income.

Sadly whilst we will peak likely well over 1,000 PPM CO2 ... the needed total to be removed will be 2 trillion tons.

I read things like this, and wonder if they are some red herring to distract us. Its really really simple math. This is also ignoring that the PH level that the seaweed needs is very touchy and the PH level of the sea is changing at an alarming if not astounding rate.

This ocean acidification is NOT contained in any IPCC projection on temperature change. Removed like Arctic Permafrost for the same reason that it has not been studied long enough and data set from the current deep sea monitoring system is merely 40 years of data. All fossils and science are ignored.

I note, that whilst I try and only use IPCC data, the worlds best ... to be told someone does not agree with their findings, or their very watered down look at the world strange. I merely knowing not a lot compared to experts are repeating their stuff. Does someone claim they are wrong ? Apparently so and often which is absurd given what they report and what is missing. Their 2018 dire warning was speaking of the difference between a 1.5 and 2 degree by 2100 rise on the planet.

If you read the summary even, they say the likely rise to end of 2017 where their data ALREADY had a 1C rise and 2018 was the 6th warmest ever year on record .... so 1.1C ... post that report ...
2019 likely second hottest year globally on record ... so 1.2 C rise. ALREADY.

AN at best is zero net by 2050-60 and with the USA withdrawing from any and all agreements this is unlikely. That ALREADY ... in 2019 we are actually NOT 1.2 C since that's till 1880 ... NOT 1750 ... since NASA and NOAH decided to start in 1880 not 1750, the IPCC models are in fact totally rubbish in many ways.

Political ... at best ... whilst dire in their warnings, vast gaps of not included totally foreseeable and dire impacts totally removed from projections and brazenly so. Think what you will ... I merely repeat IPCC stuff on the main and whilst we are likely 1.2C from 1880 or 1.6 C from 1750 .... NOW .... end of 2019 .. the discussion in the 2018 paper the IPCC released a dire and extreme warning if you read it, which I believe few have and the summary is a mere 24 pages which is about 18 after one takes out footnotes and headers, the discussion is warning the dire and complete devastation that a rise of 2C by 2100 compared to 1.5 C would cause to the planet.

We are there .... NOW in 2020 at the lower end. Is say the ocean acidification trend going to magically stop ? Is the clearly seen fires in the Permafrost regions going to stop ? Or the melting Permafrost and the release of the CO2 and Methane CH4 captured there going to stop ?

Well the 2C worst case scenario is cold porridge ... talking about limiting the rise from 1.5 C to 2C ... its really quite delusional given REALITY .... today we are at the lower end in 2020 ... of the 2100 estimate. We are already THERE. Last time we had even 400 PPM the rise was 3C .... NOT 2C ...

So, as someone who sadly looks and reads ... and wondered why it was removed and then read further ... and pulled apart the computer models much to my horror they had zero included.

When someone denies reality ... or gives what is a watered down approach of all will be fine ... its even using IPCC warnings of 50,000 scientists simply absurd. More so for those who sadly are near the front lines and are fully aware the actual dire missing parts make the scenario of a 1.5C rise verses 2C rise bad, but a 3C or 4C rise for those around in 2100 hard to comprehend. Whilst sea rise until the antarctic melts unlikely to go beyond 1.5 meters by 2100 the IPCC is clearly now accepting a 1 Meter rise which is a worst case 2C rise by 2100. Sadly post 2100 ... Antarctic melts and the rise becomes 5 metres by 2200 .

Ahh I dont care ... cant care. Cant change it.

Here is the current Global Temp map as of latest data ... RED ... is BAD ... all time highs globally EVER




Record warmest EVER since 1880 ... bright red ... globally this is year to date 2019.

Still December to come and Australia will sadly be all bright red for the single month. The overall much lighter pink for the year, possibly some totally replaced with bright red records.
 
I'll see if I can find the original. Sure it was a tv program. The scale was doable. Maybe the guy had his maths wrong.
 
moXJO said:
Maybe the guy had his maths wrong.
Click to expand...

Not being infallible ... my own may be wrong ...
100 hectares is a sq km .... at 250 tons per hectare thats 25,000 tons of CO2 removed per sq km.
TO remove over 50 years 1 trillion tons ... to get us back to 290 PPM co2 ignoring Arctic doubling the needed effort ...

20 billion times 50 years equals 1,000 billion or a trillion ...

So 20 billion at 25,000 per sq km is 800,000 sq km .... or if any realist knows the likely needed target is double that possibly even 4 times that level. I say possibly ... as the unknown effect of ocean acidification upon the major thing that currently soaks up over 50% of the CO2, the ocean is not a good one ... even at 400 ppm let alone 500 or what is assured at 1000 PPM the ocean simply stops working. Again, contained in several of the IPCC reports since 1991 that fossil records and levels well over 2,500 PPM when the only life was single cell ... are beyond questioning unless someone faked fossils from previous extinction events.

Then again, denied ... ignored ... disputed ... watered down.

Even the most brilliant minds are making a guess HOW FAR it goes over 2C rise by 2100. They are without despite or disagreement its going to be well over 2C and as I said the panel with 5 of the IPCC top scientists on it speaking about 4-6 C rise at recent Madrid conference ... was alarming and not extremist or hysterical as these guys are clinical, conservative in the extreme. They know what was removed from the models, they know why and most accept its understating things by likely magnitudes of almost assured outcomes.

Expecting not a 3C rise when every model predicts at 400 PPM the planet will be 3C temp rise eventually at this CO2 level is 100% assured. We are at 410 ppm CO2 and rising. Whilst it may take a few decades to get there, it is assured. Sadly that it took 40,000 plus year last time to get to that and a meteor hitting the planet followed by extreme volcanic events over thousands of years as the tectonic plates went nuts after being hit with 100,000 nuclear bombs is what it is.

Likely 400 years of humans we get to not the peaks of the last extinction event, not even half that one as that involved a 13C global rise, but we will get halfway there by 2100 unless we change.
 

So why is Russia, the US and Canada cooler than average ?

Just a question not a dispute of the science.
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7862863/Militant-climate-change-whingers-REFUSE-stop-disruptive-protest-Melbourne.html :By CHARLOTTE KARP FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA
PUBLISHED: 12:27 AEDT, 8 January 2020 | UPDATED: 13:41 AEDT, 8 January 2020
..Police have pleaded with the organisers to change the date but they refused..
..Climate protesters will go ahead with planned marches in Melbourne on Friday despite authorities claiming it will drain resources from the bushfire crisis..

..'The timing of this protest probably could not be worse if we are serious about supporting the communities impacted by fire,' Acting Assistant Commissioner Tim Hansen said..
 
SirRumpole said:
So why is Russia, the US and Canada cooler than average ?
Just a question not a dispute of the science.
Click to expand...
That's a great question.
The energy intensity of all weather systems is increasingly incrementally albeit by relatively small amounts. It does mean that there is a likelihood of winter weather events in the northern hemisphere, which are typically much more snow and ice laden than the southern hemisphere, to persist as colder for a bit longer than usual. In the case of south-eastern USA the polar vortex effects are likely to have been swinging a bit lower for a bit longer with a bit more intensity of coldness.
Averages aside, the real issues surround the increasing number of all time record highs which continue to be set globally. You can track these here.
 
SirRumpole said:
So why is Russia, the US and Canada cooler than average ?
Click to expand...

My answer ... is the Arctic polar vortex of ultra cold winds at height NORMALLY spins above the Arctic unless disturbed. Arctic temperatures hit records and records not just little ones but up to 10C MORE than ever recorded in some places.

The Arctic vortex which spins normally over the Arctic, if you examine it NASA ... satellite does the ultra cold winds instead of being trapped and pinned there, they spun and broke into Canada lower levels and even into the USA making the temperatures in some places well below the normal all be it 1-2 C verses 10C plus for regions of the Arctic.

I am aware Trump picked upon this point denying all climate CHANGE and WARMING ... ignoring that one region is PLUS 10C and the other minus 2 C but not even near record lows ... is what it is.

The issue is CLIMATE change ... and then overall global warming. Some areas yes will become wetter or cooler ... some even eventually over say 10,000 years like the Arctic tundra could as the trapped matter melts, rots ... emits CH4 and CO2 then the nutrients in the soil make trees able to grow which is not really an option right now, but in say 1,000 years. Overall the planet warms ... some regions are the literal canary in the coal mine and the global warming will be much more extreme ... and yep 2019 for the Arctic and say Greenland was so extreme and unusual that it resembled what one might expect 50 years from now.

Complex and confusing stuff ... but the simple thing is the high altitude gulf jet stream broke and instead of being a circle over the Arctic .... had parts of ultra cold air being pushed by extreme ground heat in the Arctic out to lower regions.
 
Kahuna despairs of any practical way of turning around the world wide rise in CO2 levels through , say, the use of seaweed.

Quite true. The issue is overwhelmingly big and there is no way a single process would be sufficient to have a significant effect. In that context the research around carbon reduction and sequestration is about multiple concurrent actions. They look like the following list
  • Work like hell to decarbonise our current economies. Renewable energy is the focus. Electrify everything we can and decommission coal and gas power ASAP.
  • Review and reduce material consumption of goods. Less waste less production less CO2
  • Focus on radical changes to some very big CO2 producing activities . The cement industry is the major culprit. There are technologies that will turn this around - if we have the will
  • Have a long hard review of current farming practices that produce GG. That is meat and dairy.
  • Work to encourage individuals and local communities to consciously change their lifestyle to a low carbon activities.
  • And there are many others..
In terms of drawing down CO2 check out this list.
6 Ways to Remove Carbon Pollution from the Sky
https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/09/6-ways-remove-carbon-pollution-sky
 
Sometimes the vortex breaks down, splitting up and spilling cold air out from the polar regions. ... The frigid air from the polar vortex warps the jet stream - another powerful air current, but much lower in the atmosphere - making it bulge down southwards.

Basically as stated ... Hot air ... extremely hot Arctic ...

visually

 
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...